BCC Minutes 10/10/1995 RREGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 10, 1995,
OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COHMISSIONERS
LET IT BE REHEHBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in
and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning
Appeals and as the governing board(s) of such special districts as
have been created according to law and having conducted business
herein, met on this date at 9:05 a.m. in REGULAR SESSION in Building
"F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following
members present:
CHAIRPERSON:
VICE-CHAIRMAN:
ALSO PRESENT:
Bettye J. Hatthews
John C. Norris
Timothy J. Constantine
Timothy L. Hancock
Pamela S. Hac'Kie
W. Neil Dotrill, County Hanager
David Weigel, County Attorney
Item #3A
AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA - APPROVED WITH CHANGES
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Call to order the Board of County
Commission meeting for Tuesday, October 10, 1995. Mr. Dotrill, will
you please lead us in a pledge and invocation?
MR. DORRILL: Heavenly Father, this morning we thank you
as the opportunity presents itself on Tuesdays. Father, this morning
we remember and offer prayers for our former colleague, John Keschl,
who was killed recently. Our prayers go with him and any members of
his family that he might have. Father, as always, we ask that you
bless and guide this commission as they undertake the important
business decisions for this community, that you bless our people. We
continue to pray for the citizens in northern Collier County and
Bonita Springs. We thank you for our support staff and also for the
many citizens that do choose to participate in the government here.
We'd ask that you bless our time here together this morning. We pray
these things in Jesus's name. Amen.
(The pledge of allegiance was recited in unison.)
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, we have a short
change list?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am. It appears that way. I have
two requests for items to be continued. The county attorney has asked
that we have a brief discussion on the first one, item 12(B)(3),
petition PUD-80-20(5) as it pertains to the Hideaway Beach PUD be
continued for two weeks. But in the event that it's continued for two
weeks, it would need to be readvertised. So he suggested that perhaps
the 17th would be appropriate.
In addition, there is a request to continue item
12(C)(2). No date yet. It will be readvertised as necessary for
petition AV-95-014, which was a vacation of the utility easement for
the Quail Woods subdivision.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I had a question on that one, and
that was that it notes that there's a companion replat available, and
I couldn't find that in the -- in the books. So when that comes back,
could we know more about where the replat is? MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
MR. DORRILL: I have two notes for purposes of our
recorder here this morning. Item 16(B)(ll) was continued from last
week's agenda till today. It does not appear on the index, but item
16(B)(ll) is requested to be continued for one additional week until
the meeting of the 17th. That was an agreement between the DEP and
the Board of County Commissioners for water service to a certain
parcel of land in Goodland.
And the county attorney has also asked, finally, that
item 16(D)(4) have a resolution number reserved for it. It can remain
on the consent agenda, but we'll need a resolution number. And that's
all that I have.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Any other changes,
Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No. One addition, not officially to the
agenda, but to advise the board that Department of Environmental
Protection had requested the county attorney office to provide a
letter allowing for termination of a lease agreement for the 1,920
acres for the Fakahatchee Strand. It's the very same acreage that we
have conveyed to the state. I just wanted to inform the board that
unless you create an agenda item in which to discuss it further, I
will provide that letter indicating that the 1984 lease is null and
void based upon the conveyance.
And secondly, I'm pleased to announce and take this
opportunity to let the board and the public know that Birgit Lehnen, a
new German law student, is interning with our office and is with us
today at the board meeting, and she's here in the audience.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Welcome.
MS. LEHNEN: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Hope he doesn't work you too
hard.
Commissioner Norris, any additional changes?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
Nothing today.
Commissioner Hancock?
No, ma'am.
Commissioner Mac'Kie?
No.
Commissioner Constantine?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just one I have a question
on. 16(D)(4), which is the position descriptions for the pay plan, we
have some new positions created by the reorganization. Just as part
of that process, do we eliminate old things that are no longer needed
or no longer part --
MR. DORRILL: In fact, that was the main direction that
I gave to you. If you recall, you authorized a consultant to do an
update of position classification and pay plan. And one of my main
charges to the consultant is to eliminate as many unnecessary or
similar-sounding classifications as we can. So that's part of their
investigation.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nothing else.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The other thing I want to
entertain is does the board want to add something to the consent
agenda to authorize Mr. Weigel to send such a notice to the DEP to
nullify that lease or void that lease.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is that necessary, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: I don't think it's necessary. I just
wanted to let the board know that if they wish to elevate it to the
agenda, they may. If you do not, I have no problem. I wanted to
inform you before I took care of the matter for you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Fine. I have nothing
additional for the agenda then.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Motion to approve the agenda and
consent agenda.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and second to approve the
agenda and consent agenda as amended. All those in favor please say
aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Item #4A
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 1995 REGULAR MEETING - APPROVED AS PRESENTED
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chairman, I make a motion
to approve the minutes of the regular meeting for September 12, 1995.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is there a second?
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
approve the minutes of September 12, 1995, regular meeting. All those
in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #5A1
PROCLAivLATION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER 8-14, 1995 AS COLLIER
COUNTY EMERGENCY NURSES WEEK - ADOPTED
Next item, proclamations and service awards.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, Erica Henson
is here today. If you would come on up, we have a proclamation for
Collier County Emergency Nurses Week, and if you will just come up so
everybody on TV can get a good look at you.
Whereas, emergency nurses practice within a unique
environment to include unplanned situations requiring intervention,
allocation of limited resources, need for immediate care as perceived
by the patient and others and contextual factors; and
Whereas, emergency nursing is a recognized nursing
practice, with a specific body of knowledge, which incorporates an
independent scope of practice; and
Whereas, emergency nursing is a speciality area of
professional nursing involving the integration of practice, research,
education, and professionalism; and
Whereas, emergency nursing contributes to the
interaction between the acute care setting and community facilities
through referral, education, and crisis intervention; and
Whereas, education is an essential component of
emergency nursing to include ongoing self-education, teaching of
patients and significant others, teaching the community and other
members of the emergency care team; and
Whereas, emergency nursing boundaries, external and
internal, have flexibility and resilience to change and respond to
societal needs and demands; and
Whereas, emergency nurses contribute to a high level of
nursing care due to the provisions of care that ranges from disease
and injury prevention to life and limb saving measures; and
Whereas, the practice of emergency nursing is
multidimensional as reflected by the management of patients of all
ages requiring stabilization and/or resuscitation for a variety of
illnesses and injuries.
Now therefore, be it proclaimed by the Board of County
Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, that the week of October 8
through 14, 1995, be designated as Collier County Emergency Nurses
Week.
Done and ordered this 10th day of October, 1995, Board
of County Commissioners, Collier County, Florida, Bettye J. Matthews,
Chairman.
Madam Chairman, I would like to make a motion we approve
this proclamation.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and a couple seconds to
approve the proclamation. All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
MS. HENSON: Thank you on behalf of all the nurses in
Collier County, especially the emergency department.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Commissioner
Constantine.
Item #5B
EHPLOYEE SERVICE AWARDS - PRESENTED
Next item is service awards. Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Thank you, Madam Chairman. We
have one award today. It is a five-year pin for pollution control.
Gail Gibson. (Applause).
Item #SB1
RESOLUTION 95-583 AND CWS-95-7 INITIATING A PROGRAM FOR THE PURPOSE OF
PROVIDING A SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM WITHIN ROYAL COVE AND ROYAL COVE UNIT
2 AND THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is a strange-looking agenda
today. Moving on to the county manager's report, under county manager
we have one item.
MR. DORRILL: Can you believe that?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Can we beat it? 8(B)(1), then,
approval of a resolution initiating a program for Royal Cove and Royal
Cove Unit 2.
MR. CLEHONS: Good morning, Commissioners. Tim Clemons,
wastewater department director.
The item before you this morning is seeking the approval
of a resolution initiating a program for the purpose of providing a
sanitary sewer system within Royal Cove and Royal Cove Unit 2,
designating the name of the special assessment district, describing
the area to be improved and providing that the cost of such
improvements shall be paid from assessments against benefitted
properties, instructing the engineers for the project to prepare the
project plans and specifications, estimate of the cost of project and
a tentative -- excuse me, tentative assessment roll, and also
acceptance of the Royal Cove subdivision sanitary sewer system
renovation special assessment district preliminary design report.
all of that to tell you that we need to get moving ahead with a
resolution if we're going to continue with this project.
You asked us to look at some different things as far as
putting this together. We've had a preliminary assessment done by an
engineering firm, Agnoli, Barber, and Brundage. Their report was
attached to your executive summary. They have put an opinion of
probable cost in there, and their opinion at this point is $264,200.
That includes all contingencies. And I would tell you that I think
it's a conservative number, but they wanted to make sure they had
covered all their bases. One thing that may save a little bit of
money is our department went out and reviewed the existing facilities
that are there and found them to be in good shape. So they don't look
like they need to be replaced. We'll be able to continue to use
what's in the ground today. That will be a reduction in itself. But
we need to get your approval to move ahead.
There's one other issue that Mike Pettit from the county
attorney's office will speak to, and that's on the matter of the
repayment of the assessments. Hike's done some research on that, and
I'll let him share that with you for a moment.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: As Hike's coming up, the board
might remember that Royal Cove 1 is on septic, and a lot of them are
getting close to failure, and some have been recently replaced. And
that begs the question do we have to force them to go onto it or,
because of the situation, can we, in fact, defer their payments to
within a certain window. I believe that was the direction we --
MR. PETTIT: You anticipated my point, Commissioner.
Good morning, Commissioners. Mike Pettit from the county attorney's
office. As you know, there are really two groups of folks that are
affected by this project or would be affected by this project. There
is Royal Cove, and there are approximately 48 properties there, and
Royal Cove Unit 2, approximately 28 properties there. The Royal Cove
Unit 2 folks are the folks who have been getting service from the
private wastewater treatment plant that's been the subject of
litigation.
At this point in the preliminary engineering proposal,
there was a suggestion or proposal that we offer the Royal Cove
properties, those being served by septic tanks, an option of
connecting at the time of failure. We further investigated that. We
don't believe that's an option for several reasons. First of all,
Code Sections 134 -- 184, 134, 239 require hookup within 90 days of
notice of availability. And the notice would be triggered by the
completion of the construction and the assessment. We also wonder
whether the postponement of the fee would, in a sense, contravene at
least the spirit of our special act that created the water and sewer
district, which one of the purposes of that act was to remove or
retire septic tank systems when sewer service became available. We
also have some concern that a postponement of the assessment fee for
those folks might be viewed as an improper extension of credit.
And finally, as you may be aware, past practice has been
to require hookup for assessment districts. That's not necessarily
determinative of the legality of allowing a postponement, but it's
something you want to consider. And I think, also, as a practical
matter there may be some difficulty in keeping track of the failures
of septic systems in order to then give notice to people at the time
that they needed to pay the assessment. So at this point we don't
believe that that may be a viable option for this project, and it's
something that we need to be aware of and the people in Royal Cove
need to be aware of. They will have an opportunity to come in here
and voice their objections or approval of the project as we go forward
with the public hearing.
The second thing I wanted to mention today, if there are
no questions on that point, is the status of the settlement
discussions with Royal Cove of Naples, Inc. At this time we've
managed to get the Court to continue the injunction to make them
operate the plant through November 6 of 1995. I have reached, in
negotiations with the owner's attorney, closure on settlement
documents. We sent those to the Department of Environmental
Protection. The attorney there reviewed them. She had some changes
to make. I received those this morning. I'm hopeful to be able to
present you a final settlement proposal. I would like to do it next
week. I will certainly have it here by the October 24 meeting.
There's another sticky issue there. There are really
two options about how to provide interim service, depending upon the
result of this project. One is for us to go in and operate the plant,
and the settlement provides us with a license to do that for a period
of nine months beyond November 6. Alternatively, we could haul the
sewage off site and treat it elsewhere. The operation of the plant,
we believe, is certainly the cheapest way to provide the service. And
we believe with a few thousand dollars of improvements we can meet
what the DEP would like us to do. And we also believe, because those
improvements are capital in nature, that we can roll those back into
the assessment for the Royal Cove -- only the Unit 2 folks, because
those are the only people that will be benefitted by that.
More troublesome, if we don't come to closure with the
DEP and we have to haul, is the question of whether we can charge back
the hauling fees as part of the assessment. And, of course, the
reason that the residents would want that is because it can be
financed over a period of years. I've calculated roughly, based on
what Mr. Clemons has advised me, that if we do have to go to the
hauling method, we could be looking at about a $31,500 cost. I don't
believe -- I haven't finally concluded -- I'm continuing to research
it -- that that may be a cost that we can wrap into the assessment.
And so there's going to be a question mark, if we find ourself in a
position to not come to closure with the DEP on operating the plant as
to who will pay that 31,500 or how it will be paid. I'm hopeful and
Mr. Clemons is hopeful, based on my discussions with the DEP attorney,
we're not going to have to cross that bridge, but it is a potential.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Mr. Pettit, let's go back to the
first item that you discussed. It was the concern of me and generally
of this board that to bring sewer to Royal Cove 2, that by forcing 48
residential units to go on a system that they may not be ready for or
may not need was a serious concern. Where we've looked at sewer
assessments being required in other areas of the county, it generally
was because of environmental difficulties or the failure of septic
systems. In other words, there was a trigger that caused a sewer
assessment to occur. Here the trigger may affect 28 homes but in no
way impacts these 48. Does that differentiation in any way give us
leeway to adopt a resolution to make this -- I mean, this is an
individual case. This isn't a gross assessment area. This is a very
specific application. And telling 48 homeowners, some of which
recently replaced their septic systems which are functioning just
fine, that they have to go on a sewer system because 28 people at the
end of the road have got a problem is something I want to avoid at all
costs for the simple reason that it's simply not a fair issue for the
48 residences on the front end. I guess I'm looking -- I understand
that it may be troublesome to find a way to do it. It may not hold up
if somebody challenges it. Who's going to challenge it if we were
going to defer it? So I guess I'm looking for where are we able to
customize this to fit the situation, because the ordinance itself was
not designed with this in mind.
MR. CLEMONS: Okay. I understand your question and your
concern. I will concede to Mike, because I was not here at the time
that the East Naples project -- my understanding was that was
motivated by environmental problems, which right now I'm unaware of,
with those 48 properties. Whether or not that can be a difference or
not I would be happy to research.
MR. WEIGEL: I'll join in here, too. The element we
have is the potential illegality or impropriety of extending credit to
a group of properties that will benefit from the infrastructure that's
provided but not be hooking up at the present point in time. One
avenue we are investigating and would hope to bring back to the board
hopefully with a positive opinion is the fact that all properties that
will ultimately be benefitted within the district that would be
created, starting with the initiating resolution today, may not
necessarily be assessed at the same time and yet avoid the appearance
of extending credit. Conceivably, all properties will be liened, just
as is always the case with assessment districts, that a lien of record
comes upon the properties. At this point it looks like for those
properties that have septic systems that are functioning that would
not look to -- be looking to come onto the county system would be
liened as the properties that don't have septic systems in place.
Conceivably, the interest meter would start running, and then upon the
occurrence of failure of the system or transfer of the property, which
conditions had been contemplated to bring them in anyway, might be the
trigger upon which the assessment becomes due and payable, albeit with
increased interest because it has not been paid over time. At the
same time the county has the assurance of the ability of payment by
virtue of the lien that's -- that's placed upon the actual creation of
the -- an implementation of the districts.
Today's resolution before you is what's called the
initiating resolution; that is, only the start of several public
hearings and resolution opportunities that would come forward prior to
ultimate endorsement of the project and the obligations of the
respective property owners to have to pay the determination of the
assessment amount. So today is a step that's necessary to keep going
forward and to continue the investigation. But, again, we don't want
to be absolutely negative in regard to the properties that have septic
system -- septic tank systems that are servicing them at the present
time. At the same time we may have people -- property owners with
septic tank systems who embrace the idea of getting off them even now,
and we don't want to foreclose that either. So I think we have the
possibility of making this work, but Mike was -- wanted to let you
know that we have a couple things to kind of steer around as we tool
this into place.
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: I appreciate that. What I'm
hearing is that there are options out there other than no, we can't do
it, and we're still researching those?
MR. WEIGEL: Yes. I think we will have a report for you
back real quick.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Madam Chair, are there public
speakers on this?
MR. DORRILL: No.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I will make a motion we approve
the resolution regarding the Royal Cove 1 and 2 subdivisions.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Second?
I thought I heard it, but I needed to check. We have a
motion and a second to approve the resolution regarding Royal Cove and
Royal Cove Unit 2. Is there further discussion?
All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being no opposition, motion passes five to zero.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I did want to mention quickly
that Mr. Clemons has done a terrific job for the people out there. I
want to thank you for all your work on this.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Clemons, I want to ask your
indulgence as I misstated your name earlier.
MR. CLEHONS: That's okay.
Item #9A
OFFER OF JUDGMENT IN THE MATTER OF MARY LU BROOKE V. COLLIER COUNTY,
BETTYE MATTHEWS, JOHN NORRIS, BURT SAUNDERS, TIME CONSTANTINE AND
MICHAEL VOLPE, CASE NO. 93-4491-CA-01 - APPROVED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the
agenda is 9(A) from the county attorney's report. This is an offer
and judgment regarding a legal matter. Mr. Bryant.
MR. BRYANT: Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of
the board. If you remember, this is the Brooke matter that was
presented to you in open hearing where the county recommended $15,000
as settlement and the plaintiff wanted $48,500 on a slip and fall.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was this the sidewalk issue?
MR. BRYANT: Exactly, Commissioner. We prepared for
trial. You directed us to prepare for trial. We did. And on the eve
of trial, on the Friday before we were supposed to start on Monday,
after they kept asking for additional money and I kept telling them
the board said $15,000, they accepted our $15,000 offer.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How much more money and time did
we invest after they said they wanted more than 15,0007 MR. BRYANT: I'm sorry. I didn't hear.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How much more money and time did
we invest in this after we offered $15,0007
MR. BRYANT: No more money as far as any expenses go. I
had more time in the case because of preparing for trial and had to be
ready for trial.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Your time is money.
MR. BRYANT: I would guesstimate -- if I were billing
you, I would have billed you at least another probably close to
$10,000. And that's just for the time between when the presentation
was done here and ready for trial, and probably would have been in
trial for at least three days, and I would have probably billed you at
least another 10,000 for that or somewhere in that vicinity.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm going to vote in favor of
this because counsel recommends it and the explanation we had a couple
months ago. However, I feel the necessity to say the following: I
think it's disgusting when people are looking for something for
nothing, somebody who had walked on the sidewalk every day for years
and can't take personal responsibility for their own action and has to
point the finger and blame somebody. And because it's for the good of
all involved, I'll vote in favor of this. But the whole process
sickens me.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I second that.
MR. BRYANT: Based upon your comments, we have taken a
very strong, adamant position on these slip and falls. In fact, we
have two that I'm preparing to go to trial in January on, and the most
we offered on one was $4,000, and that was at mediation, and they were
demanding 100,000.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: And my compliments to you and
your staff for standing strong on these.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would like to suggest that next
time we have the opportunity to hear one of these in open forum, which
really doesn't happen that often on these cases, that we attach a time
line to our offer. I think this is something if Mr. Bryant did have
to go to court, yes, we would have spent in time a total of twenty or
twenty-five thousand dollars but probably would have come away with a
judgment significantly less than $15,000. So I would suggest next
time, rather than burning another $10,000, we may want to incorporate
a time line on any settlement offer instead of letting you burn
continued time till the trial date and going for a courthouse-step
settlement. That kind of maneuvering costs us time -- it costs you
time and costs us money. Again, I can only echo what Commissioner
Constantine has said. But with that, I'll make a motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and second to approve the
offer and judgment. And I think we've all pretty much shared our
views on it. We don't like it, but we're going to do it, I presume.
All those in favor please say aye. Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
MR. BRYANT: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Item #10A
RESOLUTION 95-584 APPOINTING ALLEN MORGAN KHRATZ AND FRANK PARTRIDGE TO
THE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD (EPTAB) - ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Next item on the
agenda is 10(A). Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, I was taking
particular note of Allen Morgan Kratz as I was going through his
resume, two masters and one doctorate, both of those in the '60s and
then 30 years of experience to back that up. Throughout the years for
all we have applications for, we get some pretty impressive resumes,
but I would say this is one of the most impressive. I would nominate
Alan Morgan Kratz for one of these spots.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I want to nominate Frank Partridge
for the other.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'll second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second. I
just have one question for Mr. Kratz. What areas of experience is he
exhibiting? There are none stated here on the executive summary.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: His profession is pharmacy
and science. One of the things obviously we need to have basic
working knowledge of, but I hate to have us limited to -- I don't
believe by ordinance we're limited to those, but I hate to have us
limited. We can make sure we're weighting this in that direction, but
that would certainly balance the board.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've always been a proponent of
what I call odd-man theory, and that's to get a different thought
process.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Likewise, I've mentioned before
the idea of cycling new people into these committees, and we've talked
about this before, is something that I think we need to take advantage
of. All it takes is a couple people to apply once or twice and not
get them, and they lose that interest. I have no question that we'll
see Mr. Addison on a regular basis.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
appoint -- MR. DORRILL: You do have a speaker.
MS. NICHOLS-LUCY: Good morning. My name is Susan
Nichols-Lucy, and I represent the Conservancy. I would like to
endorse Dave Addison for this committee. He has served on this
committee, and he has also been very involved in the county in a
number of the issues and other county committees for at least 20
years. So I would just like to add my part. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you. Is that the last
speaker, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: Yes, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
nominate Allen Kratz and Frank Partridge to EPTAB. If there's no
further discussion, all in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Item #10B
RESOLUTION 95-585 APPOINTING MARY O. WARFIELD TO THE FOREST LAKES
ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE ADVISORY COHMITTEE - ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is an appointment of members to
the Forest Lake roadway and drainage committee.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, it's a
question of appointing one member, and there's one name. So I
nominate --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I make a nomination we
nominate Mary O. --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: After my last drive through
Forest Lakes, I would not want to serve on this committee.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Was that your drive for the
broadcast live via radio?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I call it Woodruff Drive.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That was a second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
appoint Mary O. Warfield to the Forest Lakes roadway and drainage
committee. All in favor please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #10C
RESOLUTION 95-586 REAPPOINTING MATTHEW HUDSON AND APPOINTING CHARLES
PURCELL VANGELDER, III TO THE GOLDEN GATE ESTATES LAND TRUST COHMITTEE
- ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is an appointment of members to
the GAC Land Trust committee.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, there are two
names here, and we do have vacancies for each of those names. So I
make a motion that we appoint Matthew Hudson and Charles VanGelder,
III.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Just one comment. There's a
memorandum that the land trust committee recommend we readvertise one
of the positions, because one of the applicants didn't attend the
latest meeting. I don't know if that is persuasive in these deals or
not.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm not sure we have a
prerequisite that someone who has applied has to attend meetings
before they're appointed.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, good point.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If we have someone who's
qualified, I hate to say no and -- COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Absolutely.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I think the only thing I'm
concerned about -- and I guess we're okay. This will make a third
member for phase 3, but we still have phase 1 and phase 2 covered.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Is this in Forest Lakes?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: No, Golden Gate.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm sorry, GAC Land Trust.
MS. FILSON: And the two members going out and the ones
being reappointed are both from phase 1.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Right. So we're within our
confines. We have one member at least from each phase.
MS. FILSON: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion. Is there a
second?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
reappoint Matthew J. Hudson and Charles VanGelder, III, to the GAC
Land Trust committee. All those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #10D
RESOLUTION 95-587 REAPPOINTING MICHAEL A. DAVIS AND APPOINTING RICH
NELSON AND EDWARD J. OATES, JR. TO THE COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING
COHMISSION - ADOPTED
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, may I suggest
that we take each of the three appointments separately?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's not the way we've done it
in the past. Is there a reason you want to do that?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Yeah, one I would have some
comments, and I hate to lump that in with all three.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: How does the board feel?
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: That's fine. They're three
distinct, separate seats. So that's fine.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The next item is appointment of
members to the Collier County Planning Commission. We have three
vacancies.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I would like to make a motion to
appoint Rich Nelson.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
appoint Rich Nelson. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'd like to make a motion we
approve Mike Davis.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and second to reappoint
Mike Davis to the planning commission. All those in favor please say
aye.
Opposed?
There being none.
Next item. Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would like to make a motion we
appoint Edward J. Oates to that seat. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Discussion on that. I'm
going to vote against this, and I'll tell you exactly why. There has
been behind-the-scenes maneuvering, manipulating, interfering,
intimidation by people who are not on this commission, by people who
have an interest in the outcome of the planning commission's
decisions. In my mind that is clearly inappropriate. We have a
responsibility -- and I'm not suggesting you're purposely doing
anything other than this, but people outside this commission are
trying to maneuver it so that -- our responsibility is to appoint
people who are going to do things in the best interest of the county
instead of their personal agenda are appointed to these boards. And
with all the maneuvering that has gone on behind the scenes with this,
I am not comfortable that Mr. Oates is that person.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have to respond to that by
saying that Mr. Oates is an outstanding, upstanding citizen of this
community, and it's just not fair or appropriate to disparage him in
any way. I would just caution to be careful that if someone else --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll clarify. It was not
Mr. Oates that was doing it.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's really unfair to say. But
I'm confident Mr. Oates is the qualified person for this position. He
served for many years on the planning commission. He served on the
City of Naples Planning Advisory Board. And I suggest to you that
he's more than qualified for the job.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I would ask, even though I
know what the answer will probably be, that you consider Michael
Fernandez, who is not only a native of Florida, but is credentialed
through the American Institute of Certified Planners.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and second.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: You don't mind if I ask her
to amend that? I can finish my comments, can't I?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: You certainly can, but I think
what you're asking her to do is withdraw --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I'm going to object to it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Fine. It just seemed to me
he was former planning director, principal planner, chief planner for
counties and for private entities. If we're looking at the planning
commission, it might make sense to have --
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You can understand I kind of like
planners, but I --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: A little personal bias.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: A lot of personal bias. But I,
out of respect, am going to honor Commissioner Mac'Kie's nomination in
her district as we have on all the others. I understand your points,
Commissioner Constantine. I've probably heard more back-room talk
about this appointment than, you know, one in a long time, but that is
in no way to obscure Ed Oates. So I will maintain my second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second to
appoint Edward J. Oates, Junior, to the planning commission for
Collier County. All those in favor please say aye. Opposed?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Aye.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion passes three to two. Next
item on the agenda -- I'm sorry, with Commissioners Constantine and
Norris being in the opposition.
We're to the afternoon. Is there public comment?
MR. DORRILL: I have none.
Item #12B1
ORDINANCE 95-52 RE PETITION PUD-95-6, MICHAEL R. FERNANDEZ, AICP, OF
AGNOLI, BARBER AND BRUNDAGE, INC., REPRESENTING DESNA N. SAUNDERS,
TRUSTEE FOR A REZONE FROM PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO PUD,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ESSENTIALLY AMENDING THE SAUNDERS PUD BY
ESTABLISHING THE PINE RIDGE PUD FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING 60,000
SQUARE FEET OF USES CONSISTENT WITH THE C-2 COHMERCIAL CONVENIENCE
DISTRICT IN ADDITION TO HOTELS/MOTELS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH
SIDE OF PINE RIDGE ROAD BETWEEN U.S. 41 NORTH AND GOODLETTE-FRANK ROAD
- ADOPTED AS AMENDED WITH STIPULATIONS
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is item
12(B)(1), petition PUD-95-6. Hr. Nino, are you handling this one?
MR. NINO: Madam Chairman, members of the board, I would
like to advise you that I did receive a call from the airport
authority personnel, and they had indicated an interest in this matter
and were going to monitor you on the television set and try to be
here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Well, how does that help us?
MR. NINO: I just wanted to mention it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Who's doing that?
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: The airport authority? The
county? The city?
MR. NINO: The City of Naples Airport Authority
personnel.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I received a letter talking about
airport clearance zones and discussed it with a citizen, I think
someone who -- I'm not sure where they lived. I think they lived near
the airport. And I had sent a letter to Ted Soliday asking for a
response in writing as to the airport's position, is this building in
any way conflicting with fly zones, or something to that effect. Have
you received anything from the airport authority in writing that
states a position they have regarding this fezone?
MR. NINO: No, I haven't.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. If you pardon my --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Excuse me. Which item are we on?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Oh, wait. This is the --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: We're supposed to be on 12(B)(1).
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We're on 12(B (1).
MR. NINO: I'm sorry, Madam Chairman.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We'll delay your comments
to 12(B)(2).
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'm going to go look for it.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: The response is here.
MR. NINO: PUD-95-6 is a petition that basically has us
revisiting a PUD that was approved a couple of years ago and known as
the Saunders PUD. Quite frankly, in staff's opinion, the changes to
the Saunders PUD are to make it less intensive than the currently
allowed uses, which we would construe to be primarily C-3 and C-4 type
uses. This PUD would propose 60,000 square feet of C-2 commercial
uses and, incidentally, that is 2,800 square feet less than the amount
of gross floor area that is currently allowed under the Saunders PUD.
Some of the changes are subtle changes. Quite frankly, they are the
substance of the petition, rather minor changes, one of which is to
allow increased heights of buildings over what is currently allowed in
the PUD but, however, commensurately increases the separation between
the residential area on Milano Drive. For the increased height it
more than offsets that relationship. The PUD, since it's a
revisitation -- yes, Commissioner?
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Nino, let me ask you while
we're on the subject of height -- MR. NINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Is the height that is being
requested -- would that be anything different than would normally be
allowed in straight zoning?
MR. NINO: No, it would not.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Since we're questioning
height, we've had at least two projects similar to this in that -- I
can think of one that was in Golden Gate prior to Commissioner Mac'Kie
and Commissioner Hancock being on the board. One, I'm trying to
remember where it was, since you were on the board where height
bordered the neighborhood. It might have been the Collier Hospital
property.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yeah, that's it.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I know the project in Golden
Gate was the health park. They had requested a certain height, I
think 50 feet.
MR. NINO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: There was a 75-foot canal and
obviously the setbacks on this side of the canal. But because of
neighborhood concerns, that was lowered back down to 30. We did
something similar in the North Collier Hospital park, and I'm
wondering have we heard from the neighborhood. Is there a concern
there on height?
MR. NINO: No. There has been no communications to us
from the neighbors to the south indicating in the opposition
concerning this proposal to readopt this slightly modified PUD.
However, as I indicated in my executive summary, there has been some
expressions of concern from the people on Pine Ridge.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: But not in regard to the
height?
MR. NINO: Not in regard to the height issue.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I had addressed that same item
with the petitioner. And what the original setback was at the height
of, I think, 35 feet, by moving it additional -- I think 35 feet is
the setback now or something along those lines. It's an increase.
The line of sight is almost the same.
MR. NINO: No. The maximum height proposed in this PUD
is 45 feet.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Instead of the 35?
MR. NINO: That's maybe only 10 feet different than what
is currently in the Saunders PUD. But it makes a commensurate
increase in the setback to the rear of the lots fronting Milano.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. That was my question is
the line of sight. If I'm in my backyard and I live there, am I going
to see a more objectionable development than what was permitted? And
the answer I got appeared to be not really, no.
MR. NINO: Not really, not unless you construe 10 feet
to be more objectionable.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's the whole point.
From this line of sight business, I need to understand that better,
because the people in that Milano neighborhood are some wonderful,
middle-class families, lots of nice homes, lots of kids. I mean, it's
a neighborhood. It's not just a few houses strung along Pine Ridge
Road. It's a couple of real nice neighborhoods back there. And my
concern is two: One is the buffering. The trees that are there are
beautiful, big, gorgeous oaks and some pretty trees in there. I'm
wondering if they're being retained. And what kind of buffering is
there between this project and that residential neighborhood? And
help me understand, again, the line of sight measured from Milano will
be no different at 45 feet than it would have been at 35 feet?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It would be -- it's similar. And
the way line of sight generally is measured is you take 0.6 feet
elevation to property line, and you take a distance of minimum setback
and 35 feet height, and you draw a line. Now you take 45 feet, which
is the proposed height, and move it back the increased setback. Does
it touch that line? In other words, is the physical presence of the
building more imposing, less imposing, or the same? And although I
don't know if the petitioner has an exhibit of it, I believe when I
drew it out and scaled it out it was about the same. That was one of
my concerns.
MR. NINO: You're never going to block the view of a
mass -- of a structure. COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Right.
MR. NINO: And to put it into another perspective,
another 10 feet isn't going to change the view.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The fact that it's further away
may even lessen the impact than the --
MR. NINO: Lessen the impact. Relative to your
question, Commissioner, this PUD proposes greater buffer requirements
than the LDC provisions, and it is a matter which was silent in the
original PUD. So there are some -- in the opinion of staff, there are
some subtle improvements in this reissuance of the PUD.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: From the perspective of the
Milano area neighbors, there are some -- MR. NINO: Yes, yes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I do want to know more
about the buffering when we get to that point.
MR. NINO: Perhaps Mr. Fernandez will explain the
differences at length.
This petition was reviewed by -- obviously this petition
is consistent with all provisions of the Growth Management Plan.
Staff has had an opportunity to review it. Their thoughts and their
concerns were the result of these stipulations that were included in
the PUD document. We don't have any -- we have only one outstanding
issue in this PUD, and that has to do with the traffic light that they
propose to construct at their project entrance. That issue was
debated extensively at the planning commission. The planning
commission basically agreed with the petitioner; however, we want you
to know that there were some outstanding concerns on the part of
staff. And Mr. Archibald has discussed that matter further with the
petitioner. And there is an alternative proposal that I would like
Mr. Archibald to discuss with you. The planning commission
unanimously approved this petition at their meeting. There were, as
the staff report indicates, some people representing some level of
opposition only with respect to the matter of lights and its impact
upon the Pine Ridge community.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Nino, I have one question as
I went through this executive summary. About a year ago we started
getting information on pros and cons through a fezone, and I notice in
this executive summary that seems to have disappeared. Is it that
there are no pros and cons?
MR. NINO: No. We do have a -- we do have a -- well,
let's see. Given the nature of this petition, simply a rezoning -- we
did do a staff report response to the required findings. So they are
in the staff report, but they were not extrapolated in the staff
report and summarized for purposes of the executive summary. If that
is an issue that is of great --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: It's not an issue. I read the
staff report but, I mean, we had gotten sort of used to comparing the
pros and cons.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Commissioner Matthews, if you look
on your agenda packet, starting at page 14 the pros and cons are back
there.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I've read it. I know they're
there. I just -- for the executive summary purposes, because we have
people who subscribe to this, and all they get is the blue sheets.
MR. NINO: In the future I will remember to do that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Archibald, Mr. Nino wants you
to comment on part of this.
MR. ARCHIBALD: Good morning, board members. The issue
that I'm about to speak to deals with traffic signals as they relate
to a new project, also relates to access management and median
controls. And typically your policies, whether it be the LDC, the
right-of-way ordinance, or your signal policy, or your access
management policy, all of those are controlling documents that create
the control on the part of the county. And as a result your staff is
recommending that those controls remain on the part of the county;
that, in fact, as a result of considering this PUD that we don't give
away rights or create property rights for property owners through this
process; that, in fact, when it comes to public welfare, when it comes
to safety, when it comes to roadway capacity, those issues typically
are rights that the county needs to retain. And in this particular
instance, I think the applicant has considered from recent discussions
those aspects. I think he's willing to present conditions that may be
a little different than what the CPC or the planning commission had
recommended with the one condition from staff that we continue to
recommend that the county and the board reserve those rights and only
allow the petitioner permissive use rights in accordance with policies
and ordinances on the books today. When we get into the specific
discussion, if there's specific questions we'll be glad to address
them.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Two things to address,
Mr. Archibald: First of all, the concerns of the residents of Pine
Ridge, and it is a valid one, is this stoplight would allow for people
to avoid the light at the intersection of Pine Ridge and 41. If you
look at a map, you can go straight across this median, cut onto
Caribbean, I believe it is, straight north, in order to make a direct
90-degree cut over to 41. It provides, in essence, a perfect
cut-through to avoid the 41-Pine Ridge intersection. That was their
main concern. So obviously I need to see that addressed. And the
second item is what was -- or what is the county's long-term plan for
that median strip in there? And how is this what would be a full
intersection or near full intersection -- how does that correlate? I
mean, were we planning on this median cut someday actually being
closed? I just wonder what your thoughts are on that.
MR. ARCHIBALD: The control that has been established by
the board is your access management plan for the activity center, and
it addresses this median opening very specifically. It indicates that
it's not proposed for future signal control; that, in fact, it's
proposed to be maintained as a median opening and a full median
opening, if I may say. As time goes on, the board needs to consider
and keep open the options of whether or not there's a need to consider
putting a signal there or not putting a signal there or putting in
access controls such as left turn only in the median. The point is
that your activity center access management plan is what currently
controls, in addition to all the other ordinances, and that does not
indicate a signal at this location. What the applicant, I think, will
be requesting is the option of providing a signal there if it can be
made and designed to work and work safely. And that's the issue that
your staff brings to the board today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COMHISSIONER NORRIS: Well, Mr. Archibald, that's not
all of the issue. If we're going to put a signal there, we also need
to be comfortable that we're not going to disrupt traffic, don't we,
on that stretch of our county roadway?
MR. ARCHIBALD: Wherever you put a signal, you disrupt
traffic, you cause delays, you increase accidents, you take away
capacity from through movement. So the act of considering a signal is
one that needs to be retained by the county as to whether it is
appropriate. Does it meet certain requirements and standards? Will
it improve safety or take away from safety? And your staff is
recommending that there are sufficient policies on the books that
would control that if the applicants appeal back directly to the
board. If they submit a right-of-way permit for a signal and it is
turned down, there is an appeal process there. But none of the
documents at this point in time would justify a signal at this
location.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: How close to capacity are we
operating that particular segment?
MR. ARCHIBALD: We're operating right now at level
service B, at about 56 percent of saturation. So we have a relatively
good level of service there. Accordingly, if we develop a lot of
traffic movements there, then we may have to talk about a signal and
we may have to talk about median controls. But those are conditions
that, again, we would ask the county control.
In regards to Pine Ridge, there are diverters and
controls that can be included to address those concerns. There's a --
there's a certain amount of cut-through traffic already somewhere in
the neighborhood of most likely about 500 trips a day. That could
increase. You're correct. And if it does there are traffic control
measures that could be considered or implemented at the intersection
that could address that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: My concern there is that those
traffic controls that are required based on the increase in traffic,
if this is approved, not be borne by the county tax base but be borne
by the developer of this project. And if we haven't hammered out
those specifics and if we haven't addressed it with the residents of
Pine Ridge and received some feedback from them, I think we're
premature today in sitting and deciding what's right and wrong for
those residents. And, again, I ask Mr. Fernandez to meet with them.
And I don't see any of my friends from Pine Ridge here. Again, maybe
we need to just kind of get through everything and take a gross look
at it, but I'm a little concerned about the timing here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was --
MR. ARCHIBALD: I believe the applicant will most likely
address that specifically.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I was going to suggest we go
ahead and hear from the petitioner. He apparently, based on his
nodding his head, has addressed these issues. Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Good morning, Commissioners. Michael
Fernandez for the record. Let me go ahead and take you through my
spiel, and we will definitely tackle those transportation and
neighborhood issues as we go along.
As Mr. Nino introduced the project, this is an existing
PUD that exists today, and essentially what we're coming in on is
modification. In many respects, as staff has said, we're essentially
down-zoning the site. We're looking at less square footage of
intensity from approximately 63 down to 60 relative to the setbacks.
Currently you can build -- and I will tell you, looking at the past
records of this petition, that when it came forward in its original
program and it was approved two years ago, half of this boardroom was
filled. And the biggest issue was the one that had to do with the
residents immediately south of this site and, essentially, their
biggest concern was the impacts from the development and the building
height.
The PUD that was approved was approved for 35 feet, and
you are allowed to build that 35 feet within -- at a setback of 25
feet. Now, what we've done is said that at 25 feet the greatest
building height we would be able to accomplish would be 25. At 50
feet we would be able to accomplish 35 feet. So to accomplish the
same thing that the other PUD did, we moved it back an additional 25
feet. For the additional 10 feet of height that our development
project's looking at, we would have to have a setback of 75 feet. So
we've addressed significantly those issues that had to do with the
impacts relative to setbacks in the rear.
The other issue that Ms. Mac'Kie brought up has to do
with landscaping and the buffering system that would be utilized to
the south of the site. The current PUD -- well, the current land
area, if you will, has a significant amount of vegetation. It
originally had homes on it, but it had some very mature, valuable
trees both to the developer and to the community, and those are around
the perimeter of the site both on the south, the east, and the west.
The existing PUD calls for the removal of all that vegetation and
putting a retention area -- linear retention area in that same
location.
What we've done is we've committed, knowing the concerns
that were there last time, to preserving that perimeter buffer of
existing vegetation. In addition to that, where we're not maintaining
those trees -- the buffer reads that trees will be spaced on center
every 15 feet and the trees will have a minimum height of installation
of 12 feet in height, that a vinyl-coated, chain-link fence much like
what you see at Pelican Marsh will be interwoven with a hedge in
addition to those tree requirements. This is significantly above what
the LDC requires, which would simply be a tree every 30 feet with
heights varying from 8, 10, and 12 feet. So we've increased the
buffer system in addition to maintaining some of the very mature trees
significantly. So I believe we've addressed the issue of the building
height.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Are there any pictures of that?
I'm not very -- you planner types are good at picturing this in your
head, and I'm not very. Are there any renderings or anything of what
the landscaping might look like?
MR. FERNANDEZ: There was a conceptual rendering that
was done of the project. An architect's been retained. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Oh, this?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct. An architect's been
retained. We don't have a landscape rendering of the buffer in the
rear but, like I said, numerically it's significantly in addition to
what you have. And, of course, it's -- as you may have noticed in the
aerials, there's a significant amount of vegetation. We're proposing
to keep the existing ones.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay.
MR. FERNANDEZ: In addition to that, we're looking at
changing the uses. Obviously the current PUD allows for uses in C-i,
C-2, C-3, and C-4. Essentially, we've scaled that back. We're
looking at uses in C-1 and C-2 in addition to hotels. The landowner
actually has a project in mind that's received good response in the
marketplace, which we'll address here shortly, and that's a
medical-related one. There's been a rendering placed on site
measuring that market, if you will. And what's being proposed -- in
fact, a site plan is in your packet as Exhibit B -- is a FDP
preliminary site master plan for the medical complex as proposed which
shows, we believe, an enhanced site plan with well-located buildings
to limit any impacts to the neighbors. And obviously a medical-type
office center would be a significantly less impact than restaurants
and retail as originally proposed. Relative to this use and this use
alone we're requesting a traffic light.
In our original PUD, in the material you have before you
that was reviewed by the planning commission, we're requesting a
traffic light. We've now come back, and the developer acknowledges
that perhaps a traffic light is not necessarily warranted in all cases
but does believe so if it's medically related. We've produced some
additional text to the transportation stipulations, which we've given
a copy to George Archibald, who's had a chance to review it, and we
had a disagreement on one word and one word only. Essentially, what
it says is that the developer will provide the cost -- the fair share
of capital funding cost of a traffic signal if, indeed, it's
warranted. That's if we do anything other than medical. If we do
medical -- essentially, what we're doing is saying that medical's
unique. It has unique aspects. You're looking at the infirmed,
people that are under medication, the elderly.
We're talking about approximately 80 doctors in this
development. So we're going to have a significant population
utilizing this development that need to have the convenience and the
safety of having a traffic signal. In fact, the marketplace has come
back and told us that if there is not a traffic signal at this
intersection for this development, that they would not necessarily
look at it favorably for a medical complex. So what we've done is
we've suggested that we do need a traffic light, however,
acknowledging George Archibald's concerns. In either case, we've
added language that essentially says that developer acknowledges the
right of the county to determine its operational hours, which we
suggest would be limited to the hours of operation of the complex
during the week, say from 7:30 to 6:00 and, also, if indeed they're
warranted. So if the county says, well, the traffic light's not
warranted, then it will turn into a blinking mode as opposed to a full
traffic light.
And lastly, future modification of the intersection may
be necessary, and when deemed so the county will do so. And that's
standard policy. And we don't have a problem with that, including the
removal of traffic signal and the closure of the median in the future,
if that's what the county determines is necessary.
The staff has asked the developer to produce a traffic
warrant study. A traffic warrant study is what your staff utilizes
and what the developers produce for staff and consultants to justify
the need for a traffic light. The developer did so at staff's request
and to their specifications, and it indicated that five warrants were
met and marginally a sixth.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Quick question on that. The
study was based on projected numbers I'm assuming?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: So they're not obviously on
actual numbers but what you anticipate having coming and going from
that building?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: And with that anticipation of
60,000 square feet of medical office space for this study?
MR. FERNANDEZ: No, it was not. It was based on the the
criteria staff requested, which was a mixture of retail and office.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Would that produce a higher trip
generation or lower trip generation?
MR. FERNANDEZ: It does produce a slightly higher trip
generation when utilizing the retail.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I ask is because one
of the warrants you're talking about as far as making a light
necessary is the medical nature.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Relative to safety, that's exactly
correct. It's unique.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. So either we're kind of
dealing in the medical realm of trip generation or we're not. That's
why I asked the question. So basically the trip study you did
produces a higher generation than would 60,000 square feet of medical
office use.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Not significantly, though. One thing
you obviously are probably are aware -- and as you can see from our
site plan, we're looking at 270 parking spaces on that site. It's a
ratio significantly higher than you usually see with retail. Of
course, that means there's a lot of cars coming and going. Also, the
impact fees for medical are the highest of the other uses that are
listed on your impact fee requirements and, of course, because it
generates a significant amount of impacts to your system. So it's a
very intensive use, but it's one that's necessary somewhere in the
county. And as our consultant will speak to in a moment, it's one
that is well located in this particular location.
Relative to the neighbors to the north, we understood
their concerns. We made attempts to get a hold of them, and we did.
We had an opportunity to meet with them. We discussed the issues. We
suggested to them the option of putting a diverter. The developer has
agreed to fund the construction costs of that diverter and landscaping
that's appropriate and allowed by the county code to enhance their
entryway that would mitigate the traffic that could normally be placed
going through their development.
In addition to that, of course, when you put a diverter
in there, you no longer have a four-way intersection. You now have a
T-intersection. And a T-intersection will inhibit traffic
significantly less than a four-way. So we're looking at that as an
offset to what would be there if it was simply a full median opening.
If it was a full median opening, you still have people making those
turning movements. And as cars go through that intersection, people
slow down. They inhibit traffic.
What we're suggesting to you what's needed here is
synchronized timing between those lights. And, again, the developer,
after hearing additional concerns by staff, has suggested -- has
agreed to pay for the synchronization between the U.S. 41 light and
their light at Caribbean Road. We hope we've addressed these issues.
When we met, though, with the property owners, their representatives
-- and we met with their president and another member -- basically
said they had insufficient time to go back to their membership, meet
with them, and confirm that this is a viable solution in their
opinion. However, they did state to us that if the traffic light
suggested in this location that they are -- they would request a
diverter.
In our proposed language that we've submitted to George
Archibald and after speaking to him, George has suggested to us that,
you know, we don't place the diverter there at this time, that we look
at it in the future once we realize if, indeed, there are additional
impacts and if there -- if it warrants a diverter. And, essentially,
our position is we'll provide the diverter if the commission says they
want it. And if the commission says they'll leave it up to the
discretion of county staff, then we'll live with that as well.
Obviously it impacts us financially, but in either mode it's a viable
solution for the developer. We don't know -- and evidently we have
now had a couple of individuals who we haven't had a chance to talk to
about this revised language that are here now from the Pine Ridge
community. And that's essentially where we're at.
I would like now to introduce Hike Cart, Senior.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Just a second. I think
Commissioner Norris has a question for you. MR. FERNANDEZ: Yes, sir.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Fernandez, I just have one
question. I just want to make sure I understood your argument in
favor of signalization. If I understood it correctly, you said that
if it were a medical facility, it would warrant a traffic signal
because of usage by elderly and infirmed and the safety considerations
thereby. Does that extend to the converse then? If it was to be a
retail or office facility, would you then propose to exclude the
elderly and infirmed from this intersection?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Absolutely not. I mean, obviously the
developer came proposing a traffic light in any case. That's what
they would like to see. However, they think there's special
circumstances that warrant a consideration of going ahead and putting
one in at this time now. However, if it is the retail, since we don't
know what that mix would be and what kind of traffic it would
generate, then we've proposed to pay our fair share when and if staff
establishes that need for this intersection. So regardless we're
looking at it -- in our opinion we're looking at traffic signals
sooner or later.
COHHISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Thank you.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm really sorry. But you
said if it's medical you would like to have it immediately. If it's
retail it's just whenever it came due?
MR. FERNANDEZ: That's essentially correct.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Also, in response to
Commissioner Hancock's question, you said retail is actually a more
intense use?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Slightly.
MR. FERNANDEZ: From a study perspective. Actually, if
you were to look at the development -- it depends on what kind of
development you get here. From a traffic analysis standpoint, it
potentially is. Obviously we could build 60,000 square feet of
restaurant, which would be significantly more intense than --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm just trying to follow the
logic, I guess, of if it's slightly more intense we don't need the
traffic signal immediately. But if it's slightly less -- the logic
there I'm having a little trouble with.
MR. FERNANDEZ: The logic here, I think, is what we're
suggesting to you is we've looked at the warrants, and it suggests,
first of all, that -- the warrants indicate that there is a need
immediately upon the development of the square footage proposed. The
second one is that there are unique considerations that have to do
with medical that aren't there with other uses.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any other questions?
Why don't we hear from Mr. Cart then.
MR. DORRILL: We have two public speakers as well.
MR. CARR: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Mike Cart.
For the record I live at 11466 Longshore Way West, been a resident of
Collier County 15 years. Michael referred to the consultant.
Michael, you're the consultant. I'm the hopeful developer.
Just a quick history of what we're trying to do and hope
to accomplish: About ten years ago we had one hospital, Naples
Community Hospital, downtown. At that time the population was
surrounding the hospital. It was in the center of the population.
The doctors also congregated in that area. Today Collier County has
changed. The population has moved north. We now have the North
Naples -- North Collier Hospital up on Immokalee Road. We have the
Cleveland Clinic moving three and a half miles further east on Pine
Ridge Road. Columbia Health Care has said to come to town. It's
rumored that they may also be on Pine Ridge Road or perhaps up on
Immokalee Road.
The most important thing there -- well, there's several
things that are important. One, the doctors no longer know where
their hospital is. If you were a pediatrician or OB/GYN specialist,
you would have found out the other day that you no longer are going to
have hospital privileges downtown. You must use the North Collier
Hospital. With the two hospitals in town, the doctors really don't
know where their patients are going to be, and that's important in
case of emergency. Most important, though, is the patients. We now
have the population moving north within five miles of the site. There
are actually 58,000 people right now. The patients are the main
concern here, the reason for putting -- we've proposed to put the
facility here. But in doing so, we have the trip generation intense
use benefit we were just talking about. I'll come back to that.
I'm privileged to serve on your Council of Economic
Advisors. And for the last year we have been putting together an
economic plan. We still haven't reached that point yet. But at our
meeting last Thursday, we did get from staff an interim report. And
to quote the report from the Council of Economic Advisors, they talk
of future employment and income opportunities in Collier County. They
specifically mention major local sectors serving essentially markets
within Collier County represents long-term economic potential, and
number one is health occupations. The council feels that health
occupations are the best -- and staff -- the best use. The thing of
most economic benefit to us to promote here in Collier County, of
course, is health occupations.
At the planning commission meeting, the traffic light
was discussed. Fred Thomas, who classifies himself as, I guess, a
world-class foe of traffic lights, acknowledged that in this case he'd
like the traffic light. He could imagine himself driving down Pine
Ridge Road, he said, and if he was infirmed or groggy, whatever, the
difficulty of pulling in here. As a result the planning commission
voted five to zero for our petition including the traffic light.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Was Fred speaking from personal
experience?
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Groggy?
MR. CARR: I don't know. He said he really doesn't like
traffic lights, but in this case a traffic light was necessary.
Speaking from my personal experience, I don't really want to pay for a
traffic light. But on behalf of my patients, I think we need a
traffic light, and we're prepared to pay for it. I don't want to do
that, but it seems to be necessary for the patients.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Did you say your patients? Are
you qualifying yourself as a physician?
MR. CARR: I'm getting myself in trouble here. As
Mr. Fernandez mentioned, we have 270 parking places. If this was an
office project or retail project, it would be 180. So we have 270
parking places for a reason. We have patients there. There may be
more trips, according to the formulas, for a retail center, but I
would say that those trips are different kind of trips. My trip
takers are the aged, perhaps they have a fever, they're anxious, going
to a medical exam, or they're in pain, to go and see the dentist, who
knows. But there is a special consideration due to the nature of this
use.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Any questions?
There being none, we'll ask --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let the record reflect young
people sometimes go to the doctor, too.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Yeah. It's a good mix. We do have our
traffic engineer that can speak to the issues relative to safety,
warrants, and so forth at your pleasure.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Why don't we hear from the public
speakers and hear what their concerns are and then ask you to respond
to those.
MR. DORRILL: Mr. DeHart. Then, Mr. Keller, if I could
have you stand by, please.
MR. DEHART: Good morning, Commissioners. I'm Arnold
DeHart. I'm the president of the Pine Ridge Civic Association. There
would have been a lot more of us here, but we looked at the paper
Sunday and thought it would be after lunch. So there may be a group
showing up later. But I saw on TV you folks were moving ahead, so I
jumped in the car and rushed down here with my notes.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I ask you -- may I ask you --
I mean, was there actually -- are you positive there were more people
or is it your assumption?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Trust me. There would be more
people here.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Well, that's kind of not fair,
you know. That troubles me.
MR. DEHART: Well, I --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'm sorry to interrupt. Mr.
Dotrill, our advertisement indicates on the afternoon agenda that it
will be done -- at one point I remember our board would advertise it
would not begin before a certain time. We don't do that anymore, do
we?
MR. DORRILL: We do show a lunch recess from twelve
until one, but then the statement says that public hearings will be
heard immediately following all staff items.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's a point of confusion,
Mr. DeHart. That's not all too uncommon.
MR. DEHART: We weren't sure. I sent a note saying it
would be sometime after 10:30. Then I put in the caveat your guess is
as good as mine. Representing Pine Ridge, Sally Barker is in Chicago
or she would be here. But she did give me some of her notes, which I
will have the pleasure of reading.
Several points I would like to make: It is our opinion
that the traffic light at the designated corner would encourage
cut-through traffic on Caribbean Road, Ridge Drive, and South. To
give you some feel for this, if you're heading west on Pine Ridge
Road, come up to a stoplight, and the stoplights seem like they go on
for five minutes sometimes, and you merely have to turn right, go
through Pine Ridge, either come out on 41 or come out on Center going
north or all the way through Pine Ridge. We feel that -- we're not
sure how much, but we're quite sure that that will increase the
traffic level of Pine Ridge. The people on the south end are
extremely sensitive to the concerns about extra traffic, the safety.
You may recall three or four years ago those folks went through hell
with cut-through traffic. So they're extremely sensitive. Anything
that will increase the traffic intensity in that area and add to
safety problems is a concern to our residents.
And not being traffic engineers, looking at the
situation out at Forest Lakes and Shirley Street, trying to get
through there going east, most any time of the day those two traffic
lights close together makes it very difficult to get through that
area. You look down the road, there's no traffic, but you're sitting
there waiting for one or two lights to change. So we think that the
traffic light there would add to the problem, add to the backup, and
add to the confusion. This traffic light was not approved by a
general meeting of the Pine Ridge Civic Association and was disallowed
by our board of directors for the reasons I've talked about. Some of
our residents feel that the traffic light is merely a marketing
device, not a safety device as advertised. The following medical
complexes do not have lights: The Colonial Square on Goodlette-Frank;
Goodlette Medical Park, again on Goodlette-Frank; New Gate Surgery on
Tamiami Trail North. Those are a couple we've seen without making an
extensive search of the neighborhood. There are probably others.
I would like to read just a few comments from Sally. I
know you miss her comments. The developer's representatives told the
planning commission the traffic light is needed for patients going in
and out of these medical offices could be on medication, too woozy to
figure out how to get in and out safely. A, does this mean that
patients are somehow more medicated and/or more woozy than patients
going in and out of the other medical office complexes that don't have
their own traffic signals or, B, if these patients are so woozy they
can't figure how to get in and out of the office complex, should they
be driving at all? Isn't it dangerous to have these people on the
roads if their driving skills are so compromised? I knew you would
miss some of Sally's comments, so I brought that one along.
As is indicated, if the traffic light is not included in
the current PUD but it has become warranted in some future date, it
can then be installed. And from the time this started, let me say
that the developer has really gone the extra mile on this and has made
a lot of contributions. And I guess my final comment is traffic
planning should be left to the county traffic planning services. MR. DORRILL: Mr. Keller.
MR. KELLER: George Keller, concerned citizen who has
been attending these meetings almost 15 years in connection with PUDs
and zoning.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: We're going to have a 15-year
pin for you, George.
MR. KELLER: It's in Hay.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Any particular date, George?
MR. KELLER: Well, it was the 31st of Hay they gave me
the last award.
Well, what I want to get at is this: You know, it seems
as though, being in Collier County for 27 years, we gradually took
four major highways, and we're commercializing. That seems to be a
trend. And maybe we have more commercial than we need but, however,
here you already have a PUD that's commercial, and what you're doing
is changing it. And that's the part that bothers me a little bit
about PUDs. Host of the PUDs come in, and they're all-encompassing,
and it gives people the right to do almost everything. Years ago we
used to have PUDs come in here and they had a blueprint on the wall
and had the landscaping and everything else on it, so we knew where
everything was going to be pretty much. Now you can have hotels,
motels, and now, I guess, we're going to have medical facilities
here. But the main thing is we have a policy of 35-foot height. Now,
if you lived in a home and someone puts up a building in front of you
and you have to look at a blank wall and the line of sight gives you
only the right to see a star or where the sun's going to come down
into your living room, that's a poor -- that's a poor determination of
what you're going to look at. You're looking at a wall. And even if
you put trees there, it don't affect it.
So I would say that we established a 35-foot limit
basically, I assume from my knowledge. And if we make an exception to
go over that 35 feet -- every time we make an exception, we make a
rule. The exception becomes a rule. And I don't think that when we
change these PUDs that we should be adding a little more and a little
more. The 5 percent difference in the total here from 60,000 feet is
a very small part of this -- a very small give in order to go and gain
10 feet. So I would say myself that let's stick to our rules. And if
we're going to change our rules, let's change our rules. But, please,
do not keep on making exceptions.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Keller. Is that
the public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No other speakers. I've got one question
for our staff just before the board deliberates. Is this property
adjacent to the Juicy Lucy's on Pine Ridge Road?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS:
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK:
Juicy Lucy's?
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE:
Juicy Lucy's?
Yes.
Yes.
Does this project incorporate the
Can it change the architecture of
HR. DORRILL: The reason I ask is because my staff had
to get involved with the Juicy Lucy project last year. As part of
developing on the Pioneer Cemetery, we found that there were infant
graves on the site of the Juicy Lucy's that had to be incorporated,
and there are poorly surveyed black and women and children graves to
the east of there that run all the way down to what I call the
shepherd's facility at Goodlette and Pine Ridge Road. And I have read
the archeological portion of the PUD, and it says that this area is
not in an area of archeological probability. But I would at least
like someone to comment or indicate whether they have reviewed the
1940 grave survey with the museum staff as part of this site or if
there are black grave sites that are east of the Juicy Lucy's or
infant grave sites that may be east of Juicy Lucy's, because they're
not contained in our Pioneer Cemetery. They run all the way back down
towards Goodlette Road through that wooded area.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is west of the cemetery,
isn't it?
MR. NINO: Yes, it is.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: No. This is east.
MR. NINO: East of the cemetery, east of the cemetery.
MR. DORRILL: I know that they are poorly surveyed.
There are no grave markers. But my question is an old survey that
Mr. Jamro has -- I just wonder whether anybody has taken the time to
locate graves outside the Pioneer Cemetery.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: That's got to be done.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Regardless of whether it's been
done, it needs to be done.
MR. NINO: We also need to appreciate that this is an
approved commercial PUD for 63,000 square feet.
MR. FERNANDEZ: If I may speak to the issue, when this
PUD went through the previous time, the existing land use at that time
were single-family homes, and they did do an archeological -- they
hired an archeologist. It's in the public records. And that was an
issue at that time. And they reviewed this specific site, and they
didn't find anything. So whether or not they reviewed what you're
suggesting or not, they actually did a site -- a site analysis for
archeological remains at that time. And, of course, the previous use
was single-family homes on this particular site.
MR. DORRILL: I don't know whether this qualifies as
archeologically significant. I think we have a moral obligation
here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes.
MR. FERNANDEZ: And I don't see any problem of
incorporating, if need be, because I don't think they're that
expensive anyway, a requirement in the PUD that prior to permitting
that we provide another such survey.
MR. DORRILL: And Mr. Jamro can do that. If we can
incorporate -- the only reason I mention it is because there was a
problem last year at Juicy Lucy's, and it was fairly awkward to get it
worked out.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Fernandez, you don't have
any problem with working with Jamro doing whatever you need to do for
that?
MR. NINO: We'll also point out --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Just a second.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't know if it's Mr. Jamro or
whoever, but we'll hire an archeologist, and with his cooperation
we'll work with Mr. Jamro and do the survey. It was done previously,
and we don't think there's going to be a problem.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is there already some regulation
that -- if you locate something, then what?
MR. FERNANDEZ: There's already regulation on the books
that says that if anything is discovered during the development of the
site that, you know -- but obviously what Mr. Dotrill is saying is
that's why we had problems with Juicy Lucy's last time. And, of
course, I think it's within everybody's moral interest and best
interest to go and find out if there's anything out front. We're
comfortable that there's nothing out there.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If there is, what will happen?
MR. FERNANDEZ: They'll stop construction and make
provisions for that.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What kind of provisions are
made? They move the grave? They don't develop the site?
MR. NINO: There's a code requirement that upon a
discovery all work comes to a halt. We need to investigate what is
the discovery, is it of any significance, and can it be mitigated.
Those are the procedures that would be taken.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what determines whether or
not it's of any significance? If it's some baby's grave, it's
significant. That's not historical significance. I'm concerned we're
going to say, oh, yeah, we'll go look at this thing, and then if we
find any, we'll do something. We'll do what is what I want to know.
MR. NINO: You have to hire a certified archeologist.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. If they locate graves
along this site, are you going to put asphalt on top of them or not?
That's what I want to know.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Nobody can answer that,
apparently.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't think that -- that's not
something that one does, period. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I hope not.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I'm going to commit the developer right
now that that will not be done. COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
MR. FERNANDEZ: But I believe there's enough -- I think
there's significant text in the ordinance that you have that suggests
-- and it doesn't talk necessarily just about historical, but it
talks about grave sites and so forth that would address these issues.
I think that the ordinance actually does that. I don't think we have
a problem going through the process of identifying if there is, then
appropriate relocating if that's what's called for and so forth.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Okay. I'd like to at some point
know what that ordinance requires. I'm going to respect the -- your
statement on the record that you'll not put asphalt on top of graves.
MR. FERNANDEZ: "Poltergeist" is my worst nightmare,
quite frankly.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Yeah, bad idea.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Dorrill, help me, because
when we were discussing Rosemary's Cemetery three years ago, it sticks
in my mind that people were buried there as late as the early '50s.
MR. DORRILL: That's essentially correct.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: So if something is discovered and
there's an archeological survey done, someone who was buried there
only 25 years ago may not rise to the archeological level.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I don't think it's a matter of
definition. We're making a commitment right now that we're not going
to develop that portion of the site without appropriately relocating
if that's what's called for.
MR. DORRILL: I don't anticipate it's a problem here.
It was a problem last year. I think that if the developer will work
this through Mr. Jamro now, before the bulldozer, then it won't become
a problem.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would ask that that be a
condition that before the bulldozers this be evaluated.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I think we can handle that at
such time a motion is made.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let me make sure. There's no
further speakers, Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I wanted to address the public comments,
if I may. In regard to some of the issues, one of them is that the
size of the development -- this medical development is 60,000 square
feet as proposed. The other developments that were spoken of are
5,000, 10,000. They're much, much, much smaller magnitude. We're
looking at a total here of probably 80 doctors. So we're going to
have significantly more people that are in need of having that traffic
light. And as we say, it's -- we've worked out language, I believe,
with staff so that it's a synchronized system, that they maintain and
control whether the -- what are the hours of operation and so forth
and so that it is the least disruptive as can be expected. And, in
fact, we believe that it will be less disruptive than just your normal
operations that would occur at the -- at a full opening and
intersection. The alternative is to send people to do U-turns at the
corners of U.S. 41 and Pine Ridge and Pine Ridge and Goodlette, major
intersections which, again, is not a desirable turning movement.
we would ask for that consideration as well.
Are there any other questions?
Comments?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I don't think so. Commissioner
Hancock has some comments.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There's no question that this
type of development is what we could call a preferred industry. It's
needed. I think I would prefer it over retail. It not necessarily
will create jobs. It has the ability to house several hundred workers
in the medical profession. The problem here comes in as a question,
really, of priorities. Pine Ridge subdivision has become a symbol of
what I call urban squeeze. If you talk to people who have been there
for a period of time, 20 years ago this was out in the country. I
mean, you're talking two-lane dirt road on one or two sides of Pine
Ridge, and the other side had nothing. And what has really happened
is as things have built around Pine Ridge, it's further restricted the
people who live in there as to their ability to get out on main roads,
their ability -- you know, we have cut-through traffic we've never had
before in there to levels that are excessive. So there is a question
of priorities.
I look at this project, and I see something that I want
to move ahead. I think you've put together what looks like a good
project, what can be a positive benefit, but I think it's incumbent
upon this board to send a message, as we have proceeded with traffic
calming in other areas, of the importance of our neighborhoods, of the
importance of not, in essence, steamrolling the individuals who live
in neighborhoods as to what they do and don't have to put up with.
For that purpose I want to try to move forward with a motion to
approve this project with certain stipulations. And I'll try to put
this in the form of a tailored motion as best I can.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Hancock, before you do
that, may I ask Mr. Archibald one question? It may assist us in
that. We have made an effort in the three years I've been on the
board to stay very black and white with traffic signals, either a
particular location meets warrants or it does not. We've made an
effort to not criticize that or not trade that off for something. I
need to know your level of comfort as to whether or not this is going
to immediately require a traffic signal. If it does not, I'm not
prepared to give one. If you think it's going to, great, it meets
that black and white criteria we have tried to meet. And then
secondarily, I think once we've established whether or not it meets
them, we do need to address the specifics of Pine Ridge.
MR. ARCHIBALD: It doesn't meet the requirements the
county has. It may not meet the requirements the county policy
dictates in the future. So your staff is going to probably stick with
the county policy, which will put the burden on the applicant of
possibly appealing staff's decision directly to the board. And the
basis for that, again, is the established county policy. I think we
need to also recognize that there may be an exception to every rule.
We don't foresee it occurring here; but if for some reason it does,
that's the door that's being opened under the PUD. But no, your staff
does not foresee a traffic signal being necessary or meeting
warrants. But if something happens in the future that it does, then
we need to respond to it at the cost of the benefitting party.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Ms. Matthews, can I ask a
question on that, too?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, Commissioner Hac'Kie.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm confused about whether or not
it meets warrants, because I had shown to me a list of warrants and
that you have to meet one and that it really meets five, and I'm
confused about that.
MR. ARCHIBALD: The county has a policy. I've got
copies here if the board would like to review it. That policy
indicates that, in fact, to receive warrant approval here in Collier
County, you have to meet at least three of the major warrants.
There's twelve warrants that are set forth by federal and state law.
Of those twelve warrants, you have to meet at least three major
warrants. We classified those in our policy. And one of those
warrants has to relate to safety, in fact, making the condition more
safe, not less safe. If, in fact, those warrants can be met, then we
need to step back and look at the access of management policy. This
does not meet the spacing requirement of the access management
policy. And we need to see whether we can overcome that problem by a
closed-loop signal system. So there's a number of steps that both the
applicant and the staff will have to review prior to ever considering
a signal system. And, in fact, I would foresee that the staff would
not necessarily want to make nor find grounds for an exception, and it
may ultimately be upon the applicant to bring that issue back to the
board through the appeal process set forth in the right-of-way
ordinance. So the mechanisms are in place. The policies are in
place.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: If the case can be made that the
warrants are met, then the case will be made, and we'll go through the
normal process?
MR. FERNANDEZ: We've made the case. We've established
that the warrants are there. We've given staff a copy of that --
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: With all due respect, the
case you've made is what you propose will happen there, what you
anticipate will happen there. You know, hopefully you build something
and actually sell the place out and every doctor is just cooking, but
we don't know that that is actually going to '-
MR. FERNANDEZ: Right. We're happy to make a
stipulation that at the occupancy rate of 75 percent or 80 percent and
the C.O. of both structures, then that -- then we can put it up.
We're happy to do that.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I guess, in short, in my mind
if our traffic engineer says you have not substantially proven the
case to his satisfaction, then I've got a question about it.
Commissioner Hancock, you were going to try to draft a
motion. I'm sorry for interrupting.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Again, you may have taken
exception with some of my terms, but what I'm trying to seek here is a
positive balance between a project that is worthy in a neighborhood
that continues to be severely impacted. And, you know, let me try to
craft that. If you grossly disagree with it, then we'll try another
motion that will probably be less to your liking.
I would like to make a motion to approve PUD -- let me
get the number here.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: 95-5.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you. -- 95-5 with the
following changes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: 95-6.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Last time I listen to you,
Commissioner Hac'Kie. Approve PUD-95-6, with the following
amendments: Section 4.5, transportation, under paragraph A, shall
read the developer shall provide capital funding of a traffic signal
for the intersection of Caribbean Road, please insert here, when
deemed necessary by Collier County Transportation Services, and the
rest of that paragraph remains the same. In addition, transportation
under 4.5 should add a paragraph D, if a traffic light is warranted
and installed, traffic mitigation measures, i.e. traffic diverters, et
cetera, shall be installed by the developer as determined by the
Collier County Transportation Services Department.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: The developer may not be the
owner at the time this happens.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Yeah, that's my question.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I will change that to
read, installed by the property owner as determined by the Collier
County Transportation Services.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: So basically what we would be
doing is in addition to the existing -- we're adding a burden to this
property owner that --
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: -- instead of we will give you a
light when the time is right, we'll let you buy a light when the time
is right?
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Plus the diverter.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: When our transportation services
department agrees that it's warranted or this board agrees it is
warranted, they have to pay for the light and they have to install
traffic mitigation measures to avoid cut-through traffic.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: That's not out of the
ordinary. If they cause it, they have to pay for it.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: There are two more items. I would
like to add the two following stipulations: One is a survey for
historic burial site shall be performed prior to construction.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Could you just say burial site
instead of historic?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Yes. Okay. I'll correct
historic. That shall read, survey for burial site shall be performed
prior to construction, and any grave sites discovered will be
relocated at developer's expense. I think that answers the question
you had about what do we do with them.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Is that what people want done
with the grave sites, Mr. Dotrill? Do they want them relocated? When
you dealt with this last year, what were people asking you to do?
MR. DORRILL: Last year -- I believe Mr. Pulling was the
property owner of the Juicy Lucy's, or there was an easement or
something. The decision was made to leave them. I would certainly
not be opposed to having them reentered in the Pioneer Cemetery or the
Rosemary Cemetery if that's appropriate. I wouldn't be opposed to the
property owner dedicating an easement to the county so that it could
be maintained as a separate cemetery. I think those details could be
worked out at the appropriate time.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I would rather leave that option,
you know, not necessarily to move the graves, but to either relocate
or grant an easement for the county.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'll amend that fourth
stipulation to read, any grave sites discovered shall be relocated or
a proper easement established at developer's expense. COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Thank you.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Those are the motions that I --
or the additions that I have.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I'll second that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and a second.
I'd like to -- Commissioner Norris, you can jump in here while I
search for the paragraph here I want.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I agree with the petitioner that
this is a good idea, a medical facility that's sort of centralized
where the doctors have easier access to all the existing and proposed
hospital facilities that will be coming along in the future. The only
problem I do have with it is this one of the traffic light and the
traffic circulation on one of our major thoroughfares and the
disruption of that. The argument made by the petitioner, and
understandably so, is that we have a good location, and we need to
modify the access to suit the location. I think the other approach
would be better. Find a location with proper access, and modify your
location to fit the access rather than the other way around. But with
the safeguards that Commissioner Constantine has put in place, I would
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I would be Commissioner Hancock.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: I mean Commissioner Hancock has
put into place, excuse me, I think this petition should go forward.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I found the section I was looking
for, because I remembered this, and it deals with the lighting. On
page 48 of our package, it says that lighting -- I presume within the
parking lot area -- will not be aimed directly toward a residential
zone. I think I prefer to see that shielded.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Fine.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: So that would read, so that light
fixtures are shielded.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yeah, direct the light down to
protect residential areas.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And what you're talking about, if
I may, is like in the baliparks where they have those shielded lights
that stop right at the light?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Or you can install fixtures that
the light only goes straight down, it doesn't diffuse to the side.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Whatever it is.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I'll amend my motion to include
that stipulation.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion. The
second accepts the amendment?
We have a motion and a second to approve PUD-95-6 with
stipulations as stated. And I presume, Commissioner Hancock, that
includes whatever stipulations from the planning commission?
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: That is correct, except the one
that directly conflicts with the traffic signal that I -- CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. If there's no further
discussion, all in favor please say aye. Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Thank you.
Why don't we take a break until eleven o'clock, and
we'll come back and try to finish up.
(A short break was held.)
Item #12B2
PETITION PUD-95-5, HICHAEL R. FERNANDEZ, AICP, OF AGNOLI, BARBER AND
BRUNDAGE, INC., REPRESENTING MICHAEL J. VOLPE, TRUSTEE, REQUESTING A
REZONE FROM A-ST TO PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO BE KNOWN AS AIRPORT
PLAZA FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 25,000 SQUARE FEET OF COHMERCIAL
FLOOR SPACE AND 30 DWELLING UNITS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF AIRPORT-PULLING ROAD AND HAZEL ROAD - CONTINUED TO BE
REVIEWED BY THE CCPC
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Let's reconvene the Board of
County Commission meeting for Tuesday, October 10, 1995. The next
item on the agenda is petition PUD-95-5.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: I just want to know if the
airport authority is watching this one on TV.
MR. NINO: No, they're here.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Nino.
MR. NINO: Ron Nino for the record. PUD-95-5. This
petition deals with certain land lying on the east side of Airport
Road just south of the Hercedes-Benz dealership or the parking lot for
the Chrysler dealership that's currently under construction. And to
the south is a commercial development. To the immediate south of this
property and extending back, oh, a couple of hundred feet, the land is
zoned C-4. There is a furniture store on that property. Of course,
over here is the parking -- used car parking lot for the Regency
Autohans, Hercedes-Benz. This is all a PUD called the Regency
Autohans. Of course, across the street from this property, as you
know, is the City of Naples Airport. On the south side of the
property, which for all intents and purposes is intended to be
residential, the land is zoned RHF-6 and is primarily developed with
single-family houses. To the east of this property, the land is zoned
E, estates.
This property consists of two major land uses. One
would be a 25,000-square-foot commercial development consistent with
the C-3 uses in the Land Development Code with some exceptions that
I'm going to explain later. The 25,000 -- the petitioner gets the
right to enjoy 25,000 square feet of commercial development under the
in-fill criteria in the future land use element, provided you agree
that the 200-foot maximum frontage for in-fill should not apply in
this instance, and staff makes -- provides some bases for you
accepting the proposition that the 200 feet should not apply.
Obviously if you look at the subject property sandwiched between two
commercial developments and you only take 200 feet of it, you know,
the reasonableness of the use for the remaining 400 for anything but
commercial would not seem to be appropriate.
With respect to the residential element, this project
proposes to construct up to 30 dwelling units on 7.4 acres of the site
for a density of 4 dwelling units per acre, which is consistent with
the density rating system in the future land use element.
Jurisdictional staff have reviewed the PUD for other elements of the
plan, including coastal management, natural resource protection
element, the open-space element, and have recommended approval subject
to those jurisdictional issues being covered in the PUD, which assures
us that during the construction mode those elements will be
implemented. Those provisions are currently in the PUD that is before
you.
You know, this PUD lies within the flight path of the
City of Naples Airport. And that matter was discussed -- that
relationship was discussed at some considerable length before the
planning commission. The issues that you need to be sensitive to is
the issue of height within the flight path and the issue of noise
attenuation within the flight path. And staff developed some
concerns, presented them to the planning commission, and the response
-- the response to that by the petitioner, which was accepted and
deemed appropriate by the planning commission, was to take all of the
provisions of the Land Development Code having to do with the airport
overlay district and physically making them a part of this PUD so that
we know that those provisions are an integral part of the PUD and that
they need to adhere to those provisions. They address noise. In
other words, additional acoustical measures would have to be developed
as the buildings are constructed to meet those acoustical
requirements.
And there is the issue of height. At the property line
in this case, the maximum height that is allowable under the glide
path, 34 to 1 requirement in the Naples -- in the LDC requirements
would produce a maximum building height of 38 feet. Unfortunately, I
don't have that flight path plan in my possession. We weren't able to
get a copy for this meeting. But that flight path would suggest that
as you approach the property at the airport, you're dealing with 38
feet. And as you get further into the property, you're into the --
you're into the flank of the approach zone, which tolerates heights
greater than 38 feet. This petition proposes a 35-foot maximum height
limitation on the commercial portion of the property, some of which
lies within the 38-foot maximum height area and 40 feet on the
residential element, which we feel confident is of lesser height than
the size of the approach zone requirement.
The planning commission -- the planning commission
recommended that the height that this petitioner has requested be
approved. If you read the staff report, you note that there was some
reservations on the part of staff, but the planning commission didn't
feel that those additional height limitations ought to be made a part
of the recommendation to this Board of County Commissioners. We're
confident that the PUD speaks directly to all the concerns that staff
had with the exception, perhaps, of the issue of height, which I think
is to be before this board and which would be further addressed by a
representative of the airport authority. There are some minor changes
to the PUD. They are not of a substantial nature.
There are basically typographical errors that need to be
taken care of. The planning commission unanimously recommended
approval of this petition five to nothing. There were three people
from the neighborhood immediately to the east, primarily people who
live in the E, estates, section who spoke to the planning commission
and indicated some level of objection with respect to the number of
dwelling units that are proposed by this project.
I would be pleased to answer any questions either now or
following the presentation of Michael Fernandez.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: One very quick question. You
indicated 38 feet is acceptable and is allowed under our current
code?
MR. NINO: Yes.
COMHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: If I am reading this correctly,
the maximum is 30 units that's proposed for the residential acreage?
MR. NINO: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: I do have questions regarding
something that was brought to my attention by Mr. Soliday of the
Naples Airport Authority regarding drainage, and I'll let the
petitioner handle that. That is the -- it looks as if this property
doesn't -- you know, I'm just looking at a bubble diagram, and it
doesn't really show water management areas, retention or detention.
It shows a conservation acreage area. And I guess the contention by
Mr. Soliday is it's going to drain under Airport Road onto airport
property, and he expresses some concern about holding water on site.
I have to assume that South Florida Water Management is going to
require, I think it's one inch on each side, whatever it is for this
thing to be retained on site. That will happen. We'll probably need
some comments to that effect.
My other one is just really a concern. You know, the
chicken or the egg as far as who's there first really doesn't matter
when it comes to putting residences in fly zones. We eventually will
deal with a problem or the Naples Airport Authority will deal with the
complaints when the residences are built, and we've seen it from the
ones that are on the south side of the airport access road. So I
guess I have to question, you know, are we approaching the residential
acreage for the purpose of gaining the commercial, because it doesn't
make a lot of sense to put it here. You know, how marketable is it?
I mean, I really would like to hear something on that, because it just
-- they've breeded more problems in the past than benefits, and I'm a
little concerned about that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Fernandez.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Thank you. Commissioners, again,
Michael Fernandez for the record representing the petitioner.
This project is approximately 11.4 acres. I would love
to address Mr. Hancock's question first. We also received, through
staff, a letter from Mr. Soliday of the airport authority. He was
comfortable with the building height. He had two issues, and those
two issues were, one, about the drainage, which I then spoke to him at
length about the requirement that the county has as far as how much
can be drained from the property. And we did submit a water
management report that established how many cubic feet would drain
off. Hence, we also -- and he seemed satisfied that his issues with
water management are more regional in nature and not site-specific to
this particular project. By code it can't -- it will not drain any
more water than historically.
In regard to whether or not residential is appropriate
here, obviously the petitioner may very well like the idea of having
more commercial on this site. The Growth MAnagement Plan prevents him
from doing so, but I think, on the other hand, we've got to look at
compatibility. And what Mr. Nino was suggesting on -- went over the
fezone area, and I'll go over here and talk about the intensity. The
intensity of this project is very low. What we're looking at
immediately to the north is a PUD -- commercial PUD that allows
significant density per acre. We're looking at a very low-density
commercial development in the front of the project at about 6,500
square feet per acre. That's a lot less -- the fezone that you just
finished hearing was close to or approximately 15,000. So this is
less than half of that.
Relative to residential, this area immediately south of
the site has a residential density, as Mr. Nino pointed out, of six
units per acre. This area over here, which is in the estates area,
essentially establishes a density of two units per acre. What we're
doing is the happy medium in between of four units. So when you talk
about compatibility, we're going from six to four to two. It seems to
make sense, especially when you have the buffer of the road and the
natural buffers that would be required from this project to those
landowners -- that land use to the east. So from compatibility, it's
there.
Relative to noise, it's something I'm very sensitive
to. I'm director of the homeowners association for the River Reach
Property Owners Association. I'm also an advisory member to the
airport authority on their master planning effort that's going on
right now. And what we're being told, actually, is that the planes
are getting less noisy as new technology comes around, and they're
hopeful that this will actually reduce what their impacts are
showing. However, the county, when it adopted the LDC, adopted an
airport overlay, which essentially addresses those issues of building
height and of noise. And it requires that new residential
construction built in these areas maintain a certain coefficient of
sound transmission between the outside and the outside. Obviously if
you're inside, it doesn't help you at all. But if you're inside the
unit, it establishes a measure that is above what you get in normal
construction to prevent some of those issues from occurring. And yes,
it's an issue obviously, but is there a more appropriate use for this
property being that it's bordered by existing residential on one side,
across the street it's residential?
And between the commercial and the residential areas,
we're looking at a very fortunate natural buffer. We have beautiful
vegetation there. That area's being preserved. No water management's
being put in. We're not taking anything out of that area. So it's
going to create a very natural, very aesthetic sound buffer between
the new residential component and the proposed commercial. We're even
being a little forward thinking. We investigated the site, and the
landowner found that there's a -- there existed a weir that was placed
by the water management district there some years ago that has since
been torn down, but they left some of the infrastructure there. So
that's the area that's been disturbed. And what we've proposed and
have done -- given credit for is the ability to put a pedestrian walk
between the residential and commercial acreage. So these poor people
can cross there if they want to if there's uses that end up being
there that they so choose to seek out. And we've provided the LDC
buffers around the perimeter of the site.
So we feel we have a site that's very compatible both to
the existing context that it's in, and it's the best use of the
property given the requirements and limitations that are within the
Growth Management Plan. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to
answer them.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I have just one --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Pardon me.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: On the residential you have a
building height built in of 40 feet, is it?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Actually, it's only for one type of
unit. And if it's the pleasure of the commission -- the adjacent
landowners or the adjacent land use to the south and also to the north
have 35 feet. And if you're looking at compatibility and we need to
drop that down to 35 feet so that they're equal in that potential and,
in fact, some of the areas that have developed in the estates have
reached that 35 feet maximum, then the petitioner would submit that
he's willing to do so.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: On the vein of compatibility,
what is existing south of the property? What kind of heights are we
dealing with? Are we talking -- I'm not familiar with that particular
piece. Are we talking single-family homes or apartments?
MR. FERNANDEZ: You're talking, generally speaking,
about single-family homes.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Which for the most part are 20,
25 feet if they're two-story, most of which are single-story?
MR. FERNANDEZ: Actually, when you measure for the roof
heights and so forth, you're probably talking an average of 16, 18
feet under current conditions. There has been some redevelopment of
that area. And if you look at those and -- the first scenario is one
story. Some of the reconstructive ones are a little bit bigger, and
some of the two-stories approach 30 feet.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: The reason I ask is when you
aggregate the conservation areas in residential acreage to obtain your
density, you're talking a net density of 7.6 units per acre on the
residential piece, which means if you're going to obtain anything
close to 6, you're going to have to go up three floors. I mean,
you're not going to get 6 units per acre out of 2 floors there.
MR. FERNANDEZ: We've done some site analyses that does
indicate that we can within a two-floor development get all 30 units,
and we're very comfortable with that.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. I'm --
MR. FERNANDEZ: The other thing, of course, is that the
Growth Management Plan, in addition to allowing us the 4 units per
acre, does have a provision for in-fill commercial, which we didn't
apply for, and it would allow an additional 3 units per acre on this
site, which would give us a total of 7 on the whole, 7 acres which
would allow us a maximum of 49. So looking at the compatibility, we
didn't feel that that was necessary. And then in doing it, just as
you did, doing some initial site analyses, well, there's no use asking
for something we really aren't going to use anyway.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: You're saying you can get the
unit you're looking for into two living stories? MR. FERNANDEZ: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Rather than just going a straight
40-foot height, does the petitioner have any difficulty limiting it to
2 living stories? The reason I ask that is you're taking 2 units per
acre which generally are single-story homes on one side. You have an
increase in building on the other side that's going to 2 stories. You
may not be involved when this comes to development, and someone may
want to go 3 stories, and I don't see that as being compatible.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I think that the only problem with that
-- some of the units that we may be speaking of may have like loft
areas which may be considered a third story even though, because of
the architectural configuration, it has no more impact than a 2-story
home. So to -- and we've had those kind of discussions. And I've
wrote -- I've written Land Development Code regulations for the City
of Naples dealing with building heights. It's very hard to enforce
without looking at specific product. But the unit -- the single
family that's immediately south here also has the ability to build
35. And, in fact, if a developer aggregates single-family homes, he
can build up to 6 units per acre, which is denset. And with prices
going up and as the density -- as the area grows, it would not
surprise me -- this is one area that you may see redevelopment occur
in apartments and condominiums at densities that are higher that will
probably approach that 35 feet. So I see that from a compatibility
standpoint that, you know, they're at 35, we're at 35, everybody in
that whole area is at 35. That should give that level of comfort that
we're really looking for.
COMHISSIONER HANCOCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Mac'Kie.
COMHISSIONER MAC'KIE: I'm told by the application, Mr.
Nino, where it shows that the owner of the property is Michael J.
Volpe as trustee, and under Florida law that means he owns it. If
that's, in fact, how the title is held, then the title is held in a
land trust. And on the application, instead of checking the little
box that says, if applicant is a land trust, if so, indicate name of
beneficiaries below, he checked that he is the owner. And nowhere in
here is a disclosure of who actually owns. And, in fact, all over the
application where that -- for example, in the -- on page 28 of our
packet where it would say, the undersigned being the blank of real
property, that was whited out, and they've replaced it with owner and
representative. And that kind of a change occurs a couple of places.
And that makes me wonder if there's a deficiency in the application
itself since a land trust is supposed to disclose the beneficiaries.
And why didn't they?
MR. NINO: We brought that issue to the petitioner's
attention. They advised us that Michael Volpe is the sole owner of
the property.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: But a trustee is -- and, Mr.
Weigel, you want to argue with me about this or tell me if I'm right
or wrong? If I do, in fact, hold title to property for clients and I
hold it as Pamela Mac'Kie, trustee -- 689.07 is the Florida Land Trust
Statute. If we're going to have a requirement for disclosure of
beneficiaries of land trust, I want to know why it wasn't complied
with in this case.
MR. WEIGEL: Well, certainly I don't want to argue with
you, and I'm not, but -- COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: I could be wrong. I didn't mean
argue with me, but tell me if I'm wrong.
MR. WEIGEL: For legal discussion you're absolutely
correct that typically there's a separation between trustee and
beneficial interests when you have a property established that's held
in trustee. And when you have a trustee that is also the owner, then
you have a merging of the interest, and there is no true trustee
relationship. So it appears -- it appears an anomaly on the record
here, although where Mr. Volpe has signed off, as you indicated, on
page 28, it on its face appears to be a discrepancy, although he has
actually signed off as owner and representative. And one might -- one
might come to a conclusion that he is the sole owner based on the
various representations throughout, which means the trustee line there
doesn't assist us at all.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: May I also point out that where
he signed it there he signed it Michael J. Volpe, as trustee, UAD --
that stands for under agreement dated -- 5/26/93. So he says there is
a land trust dated May 26, 1993, and then in the application he says
he's the owner. That raises a red flag for me. Is there some reason
not to tell us who the beneficiaries are?
MR. WEIGEL: I believe it has been the county policy for
at least two, three years now at least that we are to determine --
that the applicant is to provide that language.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Yes. And I might point out that
it was Mr. Volpe who insisted that that policy be put in place.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: And I might point out I was the
petitioner when he insisted on that policy, and I argued against it
and said it shouldn't be there. But it's there, and I would like to
know why it's not --
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: He also sent several petitions
back for no other reason than that the ownership wasn't disclosed.
MR. FERNANDEZ: If I may address the issue --
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Please.
MR. FERNANDEZ: -- I was instructed that if that
question came up to inform you that Mr. Volpe is, as listed, on the
title of the property and that the trustees are John and Jackie
Remington.
COHHISSIONER HAC'KIE: You mean the beneficiaries are
John and Jackie Remington.
MR. FERNANDEZ: Excuse me. I stand corrected.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why wasn't that included in the
application? And is that a deficiency, Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: Well, I don't think it's a deficiency in
the sense that the information is now on the record, which is
important and required.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Why did they do it that way?
That really bothers me. I don't know why they did it that way.
What's the big secret? Why didn't they disclose -- Mr. Nino, did you
ask them to?
MR. NINO: Yes, I did.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: And they refused to?
MR. NINO: I was told Mr. Volpe was the sole owner. I
advised them of your policy.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This went through the planning
commission without it being --
MR. FERNANDEZ: Excuse me. The question that was asked
both by staff and commissioners and by the planning commission was
that -- in whose name was the property, and the answer was that it was
under Mr. Volpe's name.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Fernandez, surely you
know the substance of that question was to find out who -- MR. FERNANDEZ: I can't --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Let me finish.
MR. FERNANDEZ: I can't answer your question why it
wasn't --
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Fernandez, surely you
know the substance of that question was to find out who all was
involved in that property. We have certain laws and regulations we
have to follow through with, including conflict of interest. If
Ms. Hac'Kie is representing the Remingtons, how would she --
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: How do we know? How do we know?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Not purposely, but it could
get into a conflict of interest situation. Any of us could.
COHMISSIONER MAC'KIE: What about the planning
commission? If they didn't know about the Remingtons, how do we know
that there wasn't a conflict at the planning commission? I just think
we ought to stick to policy. And Mr. Volpe knows that policy better
than anybody, and he should have complied with it.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Weigel, new subject.
MR. WEIGEL: Okay.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Do we have the legal ability to
put a stipulation in this PUD that would require any occupant, whether
they be actual property owners or a rental tenant of this residential
property, to sign a statement saying that they will not bring any
action or even complain about noise at the airport as a condition of
their occupancy?
MR. WEIGEL: I tend to think not. I'm looking over to
Ms. Student to see if she has any additional thought or nod of her
head, but I tend to think that we cannot. We are dealing with --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: What would be the strongest
measure that we could take? Would we be able to require that each
occupant at least be notified in very clear language that there is an
airport nearby and there will be some airport noise involved?
MR. WEIGEL: What will occur is two things: One, the
record being created today makes the issue very clear on the record
what the board is looking toward if it were to go forward to approve.
Even if the board didnwt make it so clear, I would suggest that the
board technically has done what it is -- is going to do what it is
doing on the open record. And even with the submissions within the
agenda packet itself, the issue is very clear. Mr. Fernandez also
indicates that the purchasers with the owner pursuant to the PUD
document would be signing a document indicating their knowledge of the
area that they are purchasing into; that is, the zoning or the
rezoning through the PUD. They may have further comment.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I want to make a comment.
Commissioner Norris, when Pelican Isle was before us, we did insert
provisions in there that they be required in their deeds and their
leases to their purchasers and lessees about the three-foot draft for
Wiggins Bay so that they cannot come into the county commission ten
years from now and say, we didnwt know.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Similar in Pelican Marsh
concerning the sewer plant.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes. We did require notice.
MR. FERNANDEZ: As you may know, when you purchase a
piece of property thatws located within a PUD, state law requires that
you sign a piece of paper that says that you reviewed the PUD thatws
been given to you and that you understand the provisions in it and any
requirements that may affect you. So theywre given a copy of -- for
instance, when we bought into our home as part of River Reach PUD, we
had to sign off a waiver saying we acknowledge that. And, of course,
consistent with the agreement we worked out with staff, we had
physically attached to the PUD as an exhibit those regulations from
the LDC that are -- pertain to the noise issues and the location of
the runway in relationship to the property.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Madam Chairman, before we
spend a whole lot more time discussing this, it seems to me the point
about the planning commission is a good point. We may have someone on
the planning commission that does business with the Remingtons, and
theywve put themselves in a bind without even knowing it. And I think
in order to make sure everyone is safe here, it might be in our best
interest to send this item back and make sure all steps are clear in
the process, and then get it back to us. The record now indicates
that, but the planning commission didnwt have that knowledge.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that a motion?
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Iwll make that a motion.
COMMISSIONER MAC~KIE: Second.
MR. MULHERE: When I looked at the application, I asked
Mr. Nino to find out who the beneficiaries of the trust were. Iwm not
exactly sure how that question got down to Mr. Fernandez, but I hope
the intent was known. The intent was to know who benefitted from the
property, who was the owner. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a motion and second to
direct this application back to the planning commission.
MR. DORRILL: There was a member of the airport
authority who was here, and I donlt know whether he wanted to make any
other statements today, or I believe this is going to come back.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We have a person from the airport
authority wishing to -- wishing to speak to this?
MR. DORRILL: He was registered, but my understanding is
you're going to continue today's hearing until this has properly gone
back to the planning commission.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: That's what the motion is, yeah.
MR. DORRILL: Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I would suggest that that speaker
for the airport authority attend the planning commission meeting.
We have a motion and second to direct this petition back
to the planning commission. All those in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Item #12C1
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 95-16, THE COLLIER COUNTY BUILDING
CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATIVE CODE - CONTINUED TO 11/7/95
Next item on the agenda is 12(C)(1), recommendation
Board of County Commissioners adopt an ordinance amending Ordinance
95-16.
MR. MAGRI: Good morning, Madam Chairman,
Commissioners. I'm here this morning to make a request that we amend
the building administrative code ordinance. For the record I am Joe
Magri. I am the acting building plan review and permitting department
director.
We have two areas that we would like to amend in this
administrative code. One of those deals with prohibitive activities
on the building site, and the other one is concerned with the time
limitations on a building permit application. In the past we have not
allowed activities such as filling land, excavations, and pile driving
on a site until they have received their building permit. We have
made some changes in that, especially in the area of a test piling.
Due to the fact that Collier County is pretty much surrounded by a lot
of water and we have, naturally, Marco Island surrounded by water, we
require a unique-type foundation. It's unique to the point of
requiring pilings being driven. During the process of designing a
building, an engineer will make request to drive pilings so that they
know what size piling to use, how many to use, and what type of piling
to use. What we are -- have advised or would like to do is to allow
them to drive these test pilings prior to receiving the building
permit. And to be sure that we don't end up with piling in the ground
in different areas where they don't commence with the building, we
would require a credit or bond of some type so that they would bring
the property back to its original state so that they would not
continue on with the project.
The other area of concern is, as I said, in the time
limitations of the building permit. When an applicant comes in for a
building permit and applies for a building permit, we go through a
plan review process. And at the end of the plan review process, the
customer is notified that his plan is ready -- his permit is ready for
pickup. We at the present time only have a 30-day time limitation on
that, and we would like to extend that to six months.
The other area of concern is where an applicant has
applied for a building permit, and it goes through the plan review
process, and we find deficiencies, and we notify them, and at that
point we would require them to do something about the deficiencies we
may have found and make some changes and amendments to their
drawings. And so we would like to also increase that to give them a
six-month period to make those corrections.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: What's the reason behind
extending each of those 30 days to 180 days?
MR. MAGRI: We have found that in many cases, especially
on a lot of these large projects, their commitment for the dollars to
continue construction takes them some time to get, and so many times
we've expired a permit that we have to reinstate later on. In other
words, they would have to come in and get another -- make application
over again. So we found it to be a hardship for them.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: How did we arrive at six
months as opposed to --
MR. MAGRI: This is something that -- the six-month
period was in the original -- was in the building code and was amended
at one time, but the original building code has for many years allowed
six months.
COMMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The only reason I asked that
-- the only reason I asked that is I want to be careful that we don't
have things starting to drag on and on and on. I think the reason it
was done initially is we had some problem with some kind of -- I just
want to make sure we don't go back to that. Maybe there's an
explanation somewhere.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Hancock?
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Another element we may want to
consider here is that that 30-day window -- whenever you apply for a
building permit, you also got your certificate of adequate public
facilities. If we extend that to 180 days, that means each time you
get a commitment from the utilities that adequate, you know,
capacity's available, that utility knew that you would be starting
construction in 30 days, and there's less of a kind of bookkeeping end
on that. Now the certificate would have to qualify for 180 days, and
I wonder how that applies to obtaining that certificate and how it
applies to the utilities both private and public that have to issue
them. Is that going to create a problem?
MR. CAUTERO: Vince Cautero for the record. I don't
think it will, Commissioner, because it's my understanding that the
30-day requirement to pick up the permit is relatively new. I believe
it has been in effect for just a short period of time. I don't even
think it has filtered through the system for a long enough period of
time where they would register based upon what you were saying. The
main factor here, and it goes back to Commissioner Constantine's
question, is the fact that the building code -- the Southern Building
Code Congress International document establishes a 180-day time frame,
and builders and developers have become familiar with that in this
part of the state, the whole state for that matter. And you have the
30-day requirement, which is much more restrictive, in our ordinance.
And we believe it's wise to go back to the original standard that was
in this county's building code.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Norris.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Magri, would you go over once
again for me the change in the landfilling requirements?
MR. MAGRI: There is a -- yes. There has been a
change. As long as it's site-specific authorization, they can do some
filling.
COMMISSIONER NORRIS: Who authorizes it, the board or
you?
MR. MAGRI: The project review section of our --
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay.
MR. HULHERE: As you may recall, the board directed us
to look at certain circumstances where clearing and filling would be
permitted prior to issuance of a building permit. And we've had
workshops done over the past six months. And you would have already
heard this at one time had you had the LDC amendments heard on
Wednesday. So they are coming forward.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. Here's my question: What I
need clarified is if a project is allowed to fill early, what is the
mechanism, once again, if they -- if for whatever reason they continue
with the project to -- are we able to -- what do we do? Is there a
time limit and then we require them to return it to original
condition, or what happens?
MR. HULHERE: One of the conditions for approval of
early clearing and filling would be that the applicant will be
required during the process of approval to submit a revegetation plan
as well as a bond to provide the capital funding for the county,
should the county happen to walk in, should the developer not be able
to continue for any reason the improvements on the site.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Okay. So we do have that --
MR. HULHERE: Yes. We have provided for that.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel, I have a question.
Turn to page 40 of the ordinance, Section 4, effective date. It says,
building shall become effective upon filing with the Secretary of
State.
MR. WEIGEL: Yes.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We haven't passed the LDC
amendments yet. Does this violate our LDC?
MR. WEIGEL: I don't think that it does. The building
code, although referencing the LDC, falls under different
statute-specific statutes, 553 and 633. So I don't think we have a
problem. One note I would like to make for the record, however, is
that this draft copy numbered ordinance that is provided here does not
have a legend that appears on the final draft copy, which is -- which
has a legend at the bottom saying, words added are underlined, words
stricken through are removed. And I would like the record to reflect
that the strike throughs and the underlines that appear in this
ordinance pertain exactly to what a legend would otherwise say but
doesn't here. I don't believe we have a problem in that regard;
however, I will state that if the board were to approve this ordinance
today, the fact is the effective date is when it gets to the
Department of State and Secretary of State. So this can be held if
there's any questions in that regard to coincide with LDC approval.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. Any other questions?
Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Cautero, I don't mean to
harp on this. And if we made an error when we made our last change,
we certainly need to change that back. But have you had an
opportunity -- I think it was a year or so since we made that initial
change from 180 down to 30. Have you had an opportunity to review
that record where that change was made and the reasons why? Are you
comfortable that we can still address some of those problems that had
occurred that initiated the change to begin with?
MR. CAUTERO: I haven't read the entire record, but I
have talked to my building staff and Mr. Hagri and chief staff members
about it at great lengths. I'm comfortable with it.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Okay.
MR. WEIGEL: Commissioner Matthews.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Yes, Mr. Weigel.
MR. WEIGEL: Let me restate what I just said. I
mentioned that this could be held -- what you would have to do would
be to continue it, because as I just mentioned with you on another
matter, we do have a ten-day requirement after approval for it to get
to the Secretary of State. So if we held it beyond that time with the
rescheduling of LDC, that wouldn't work. So the option would be to
continue this for a date certain within our advertised period, which
is up to five weeks, which would keep it within our LDC hearing dates,
which are the --
MR. HULHERE: November 1 is the final.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I guess my concern is that we're
now looking at an ordinance that is going to allow tree removal. It's
going to allow filling. What else is stricken through here? And it's
going to extend the time from 30 to 180 days. I don't think the time
part bothers me. That's not part of our LDC. But I'm not sure that
the tree removal, filling, and clearing and so forth is not a part of
the LDC. And I'm a little bit concerned that we're passing an
ordinance a couple weeks too soon.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Weigel, can we pass an
ordinance pending the outcome of LDC, or do you think it's in our best
interest to continue it?
MR. WEIGEL: My thought is that you would just need to
continue it. Continue the public hearing to a date certain to
coincide with the LDC.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to continue the item
till October 31. Does that work?
MR. HULHERE: Yes. The final LDC hearing is Wednesday,
November 2.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We would have to go to the
following Tuesday.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Wednesday is the first, not
the second. I make a motion we continue this item till November 7.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Is that within our five-week
period?
MR. WEIGEL: This is the first week this has come up as
advertised, so you're in good shape. COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Okay. We have a motion and a
second to continue this item to a date certain of November 7. Is
there any further discussion?
All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
Item #12C3
RESOLUTION 95-588 APPROVING A RATE RESOLUTION TO HODIFY THE RESIDENTIAL
SOLID WASTE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND COHMERCIAL WASTE COLLECTION FEES -
ADOPTED
Next item on the agenda is 12(C)(3), a recommendation
Board of County Commissioners approve a rate resolution.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Mr. Russell, this is in
keeping with the terms of the contract the commission approved last
year?
MR. RUSSELL: Yes, it is.
COHHISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: Second.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: I want to mention there's a 1.2
percent increase over a three-year period.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: This is a public hearing. Let me
see if we have speakers.
MR. DORRILL: There are none, but you need to close the
hearing.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I'll close the public hearing.
Is there a motion?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and second to approve the
rate resolution to modify the residential solid waste and special
assessment and commercial waste collection fees. Any further
discussion?
All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
Motion passes five to zero.
That was easy, Mr. Russell.
COMMISSIONER HANCOCK: Excellent presentation.
Item #13A1
RESOLUTION 95-589 RE PETITION V-95-16, DAVID SOHERS REPRESENTING
HIDEAWAY BEACH ASSOCIATION, REQUESTING A 21 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE
REQUIRED 45 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE EDGE OF PAVEMENT TO A PROPOSED TENNIS
COURT TO 24 FEET FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON HIDEAWAY CIRCLE NORTH -
ADOPTED
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Next item on the agenda is item
13(A)(1), petition V, as in Victor, 95-16. That's a petition for
Hideaway Beach Association for variance.
MR. REISCHL: Good morning, Commissioners. Fred
Reischl, planning services. The Hideaway Beach PUD requires a setback
from tennis court to roadway of 45 feet, and this petitioner has a
request to reduce that setback from 45 feet to 24 feet. There were
three considerations that were considered. Environmentally, there are
live oaks scattered through the area. The petitioner according to
code will barricade any oaks that are not within the limits of
construction. Archeological and historical impact: The site is
within an archeological and historic probability area. The petitioner
has requested and received a waiver, and basically the reason for the
granting of the waiver was they're basically putting a layer of clay
over any artifacts that are buried. And the third consideration was
in resolution 95-30 there was a variance granted allowing a 50-foot
setback from the edge of the pavement to a tennis court, and this
variance request is substantially less than that. A previous variance
request was site-specific for that court, and that's why this variance
has come back before you. Planning commission and staff both
recommend approval.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Mr. Reischl, what's on the other
side of the road there?
MR. REISCHL: There are single-family homes on the other
side.
COHMISSIONER NORRIS: Single-family homes? How far
away?
MR. REISCHL: At least 60 feet.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Commissioner Constantine.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: The variance request is
simply to set a tennis court 21 feet -- MR. REISCHL: From edge of pavement.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: -- away from the edge of
pavement. There's already a tennis court right beside it?
MR. REISCHL: This area is already tennis courts here
(indicating). The farthest encroachment would be 15 feet.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Seems pretty black and
white.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am, there are not.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Petitioner have anything else he
wants to add?
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: If you don't feel a need to
MR. LANGSTON: Good morning. Mike Langston with
American Engineering representing Hideaway Beach Association.
I believe across the street is another part of their
clubhouse. It's not residential. So it's all residential -- I mean,
it's all --
COHHISSIONER HANCOCK: Thank you for that.
MR. LANGSTON: -- recreation.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: It's all clubhouse?
MR. LANGSTON: It's all clubhouse; right.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Are there public speakers?
MR. DORRILL: No, ma'am.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Close the hearing.
COHMISSIONER CONSTANTINE: Motion to approve the item.
COMMISSIONER MAC'KIE: Second.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Motion and second to approve the
item. Any further discussion?
All in favor please say aye.
Opposed?
There being none, motion passes five to zero.
Item #14A
LETTER REGARDING PARTIAL YEAR ASSESSMENTS - TO BE ADDED TO 10/17/95
AGENDA
That concludes our agenda for today. We're at
communications.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: None.
COHMISSIONER HAC'KIE: None.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I got some. Sorry. Real quick.
Real quick.
I have a letter from the Lee County Board of
Commissioners asking us to adopt another resolution regarding
partial-year assessments to bring that on the agenda next week.
COHMISSIONER HANCOCK: Look forward to approving it next
week.
Item #14B
DISCUSSION REGARDING GOVERNOR'S SEMINAR ON SURVIVING THE TAX
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: I have one other item.
"Surviving the Tax" was a seminar the governor held yesterday in
Tallahassee. Unfortunately, we did not have anybody attend it, but I
had Ms. Filson contact the staff there, and they are sending us the
written material reflecting it. That will be available, you said,
Thursday or Friday?
MS. FILSON: Yeah. I should have it by the end of the
week.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: We'll distribute it then.
There's nothing further?
Mr. Dotrill?
MR. DORRILL: I have nothing today.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Mr. Weigel?
MR. WEIGEL: No. Thank you.
CHAIRPERSON MATTHEWS: Ms. Filson?
We're adjourned.
***** Commissioner Hancock moved, seconded by Commissioner Mac'Kie and
carried unanimously, that the following items under the Consent
Agenda be approved and/or adopted: *****
Item #16A1 - Deleted
Item #16A2
AUTHORIZATION FOR RECORDING THE FINAL PLAT OF "VILLAGE WALK PHASE
THREE" - WITH STIPULATIONS, LETTER OF CREDIT AND CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
See Pages
Item #16A3
TIHE EXTENSION TO RESOLUTION 95-75 RELATING TO REQUEST BY DONALD L.
ARNOLD TO PLACE FILL MATERIAL ON JEEPERS DRIVE PROPERTY - EXTENDED TO
MARCH 1, 1996 SUBJECT TO UPDATED IRREVOCABLE LETTER OF CREDIT IN THE
A_MOUNT OF $25,000.00
Item #16A4
ACCEPTANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT FOR EXCAVATION PERMIT NO. 59.538,
"CLERMONT AT PELICAN MARSH"
See Pages
Item #16B1
RESOLUTION 95-577 DESIGNATING THE PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATOR AS
AUTHORIZED OWNER SIGNEE FOR THE COLLIER COUNTY WATER-SEWER DISTRICT,
THE MARCO WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT AND THE GOODLAND WATER DISTRICT FOR
EXECUTION OF ROUTINE DOCUMENTS RELATED TO UTILITY MATTERS
See Pages
Item #1682
BID #595-2428, SURPLUS SCRAP ELECTRICAL PANELS FOR THE NORTH COUNTY
REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY - AWARDED TO MINUTE NLA/~ HAULING
Item #1683
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 AND BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR BID 95-2315 (PROJECT
#62081) SANTA BARBARA/GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY INTERSECTION - IN THE A_MOUNT
OF $19,355.94
See Pages
Item #1684
CONTRACT TO RENOVATE THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE ADHINISTRATION BUILDING,
SOUTH COUNTY REGIONAL WATER TREATMENT PLANT, RE BID NO. 95-2431 -
AWARDED TO HIGH POINT GENERAL CONTRACTING IN THE AMOUNT OF $260,845.00
Item #1685
ACCEPTANCE OF FIVE EASEHENTS FOR THE ACCESS ROAD SERVING THE SWAMP
BUGGY GROUNDS SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIVE DEDICATION AND STIPULATIONS
Item #1686
See Pages
RESOLUTION 95-578, SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR NOVEHBER 14, 1995, AT
9:00 A.H. IN THE BOARD ROOM, THIRD FLOOR, BUILDING "F", TO CONSIDER
PETITION AV-95-008, THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF A 20 FOOT ALLEY ON
BLOCK 219 ON THE PLAT OF GOLDEN GATE UNIT 6
Item #1687
See Pages
SATISFACTION OF CLAIH OF LIEN FOR ROBERT G. AND HENRIETTA ABBOTT
TRUSTEES AND ELSIE ABBOTT
See Pages
Item #1688
CANCELLATION OF CLAIM OF LIEN FOR CHEKER OIL CO. OF FLORIDA, INC.
See Pages
Item #1689
SATISFACTIONS OF NOTICE OF PROMISE TO PAY AND AGREEMENT TO EXTEND
PAYMENT OF SEWER IMPACT FEES FOR GEORGIANNA H. ABERDEEN, MICHAEL AND
HICHELE ARNOLD, ATILA ACS AND DOROTHEA FRENCH, JOSEPH C. BREEDEN,
STEVEN H. BRONCHAK, WANDA BUDNIAK, JERRY AND LORETTA CANNON, ILUHINADA
E. CONCEPCION, HARJORIE HAMBLEN AND BERTHA SMITH, THOMAS AND JEAN
HAMILTON, RICHARD AND GAY LYDON, JILL PALHER AND JAMES KLUH, PETER E.
PRUE SR., AND FRANK G. SAYUT
See Pages
Item #16B10
ADDITIONAL REVENUE IN STREET LIGHTING FUNDS TO PAY YEAR-END EXPENSES
AND AUTHORIZATION TO CLOSE THESE FUNDS
Item #16D1
RESOLUTION 95-579, RE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE PAID IN FULL THE 1991 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
See Pages
Item #16D2
RESOLUTION 95-580, RE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE PAID IN FULL THE 1992 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
See Pages
Item #16D3
RESOLUTION 95-581, RE SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR CERTAIN RESIDENTIAL
ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE PAID IN FULL THE 1993 SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND
DISPOSAL SERVICES SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS
See Pages
Item #16D4
RESOLUTION 95-582, ADDING THIRTEEN NEW POSITION DESCRIPTIONS TO THE PAY
PLAN
See Pages
Item #16D5
RECOHMENDATION TO TERMINATE A PORTION OF THE AWARD UNDER BID #95-2358
AND TO RE-AWARD THAT PORTION OF THE AGREEMENT TO THE SECOND LOWEST
BIDDER - CONTRACT TERMINATED WITH HARRISON'S UNIFORMS AND AWARDED TO
MARTIN'S UNIFORMS
Item #16D6
COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS WAIVED; AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AN
AGREEMENT WITH THE DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION TO PROVIDE REPAIR AND
MAINTENANCE SERVICES OF DESKTOP EQUIPMENT IN THE COUNTY MANAGER'S
AGENCY
Item #16El
BUDGET AMENDMENTS 95-569/570, 95-573, 95-578/581 AND BA 96-14
Item #16E2
BID #95-2437 "CONSTRUCTION OF FUEL FARM" AT IMHOKALEE AND EVERGLADES
AIRPORTS TO FUEL TECH., INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $173,250.00
Item #16G1
SATISFACTION OF LIENS FOR SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER
See Pages
Item #16G2
MISCELLANEOUS CORRESPONDENCE - FILED AND/OR REFERRED
The following miscellaneous correspondence as presented by the
Board of County Commissioners has been directed to the various
departments as indicated:
There being no further business for the Good of the
County, the meeting was adjourned by Order of the Chair at 11:54 a.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX
OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF
SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS
CONTROL
BETTYE J. MATTHEWS, CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK
These minutes approved by the Board on
as presented or as corrected
TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF DONOVAN COURT REPORTING
BY: Anjonette K. Baum